S.B. 316 Public Employee Attorney Fee Recovery Amendments: transcript

But, but, um, the, as we increase the speeds on our, our roads and, uh, improve them, the ones that we've improved all at once, we've realized we need a lot of, uh, that there's a lot of, we've changed the dynamics with the speed and the volume of traffic until, uh, that is something we need to recognize. But we've got to, uh, work on the places that we, um, are recognized that we didn't include them. And if, uh, safety was one of the metrics, uh, uh, or safety is one of the metrics of the TIF fund. And if it alone, uh, that wildlife crossings could increase safety up to 90% is the way it's been recognized. Um, a lot of you, everybody should have a copy of this, uh, sheet that shows in, uh, the past where, uh, um, from A DOT where the carcasses, wildlife carcasses have been and pares have been reported. Of course, those, uh, red circles are only reported crashes. Uh, shows, you know, we've got clear across the state. It's not just any, any particular place where we've got, uh, concerns. Uh, last, uh, week committee, uh, committeeman Fillmore suggested that restricted funds, he always looks at our prescription for inefficiency. Uh, DWR already has 20 locations where, uh, these would be of real benefit, and that would, you know, cut, increase the efficiency. The fact we already have some in that are, uh, uh, uh, recognized, uh, chairman Brammer, Senator Brammer suggested that possibly we could, uh, it, it could be in the RTF and, uh, anyway, the rural money. We don't have a spot there that would, that that could be used. Uh, and that money couldn't be used, uh, this way. So that, that was, we found that was not gonna be a possibility. Um, vehicle collisions and deer deaths are almost the same as as, uh, what's natural. So, uh, we've, uh, doubled the deer mortality by just, uh, having that many more, uh, incidences on the highway across the state. And that doesn't mention anything about the emotional toll. So, as we, uh, you know, left committee meeting last week had our, our, um, um, meeting, uh, with, uh, UDOT and the Department of Wildlife, uh, the way we've got the bills structured is our best option to, uh, try to recognize and, and take care of some of these places that, that need a, uh, wildlife crossing. Anyway, that's a pr you know, I was asked to do it two minutes. I hope that's what I've done. Yep.

So, oh, thank you. Chairman McKay. Um, I'm Isabelle Lingenfelter. I'm the Conservation Director for the Utah Wildlife Federation. Uh, and as we were talking to DOT, um, if these projects were just ranked on safety, they would percolate to the top every time, because there's no other transportation solution that we can implement that would reduce a type of vehicle collision by 90%. Uh, the way that, uh, DOT accounts for this is they often add wildlife crossings as a component of other highway projects that they're implementing. The data we have shows that there are, uh, hotspots for wildlife vehicle collisions that we don't have highway projects planned for. That we can add these as a component to. And so setting aside money in this account will help us address those areas that we don't have highway projects planned for in the future, that we can add these crossings as a component to, and make sure that in those areas, were reducing wildlife vehicle collisions by up to 90%. And fatalities don't happen often, but they do happen. And this is a way that we can ensure that the chances of that are reduced.

Okay. So, um, what I, what I got was there's been no changes to the bill.

That's correct. Okay.

Um, and then, uh, you know, it's, it's one thing where if you say, okay, we have all these variables and they're weighted so that we can make a multi-variable decision, but if we just took out all the other variables and made one variable, then this would win. So we should make something that makes it win. You know, that'd be a good way we could play poker if we had knew exactly. Only had one option. Yeah. Yeah. Because That's kind Of, Mike would Like that horse, and that's kind, that's kind of how that could be interpreted. Mikel would like that horse race also, if this horse was the only one in the race. Yeah. And I guess that's, that's part of the concern that I have, is it's, uh, it's not in the larger pool with all of the variables. It's saying, let's make one variable more equal than all the others. And so we're only going to prioritize safety on it. And, uh, and now we're going to create a special bucket that is only about safety. And so, um,

So, uh, yeah, I'd like to say the one thing I failed to, to mention that this, this fund, uh, creates the opportunity for, uh, matching federal dollars that we don't have in other opportunities. And we're also looking at, uh, the ability to, uh, include with our car registrations. Uh, you could check that you wanna add a dollar or, or whatever. And on your, uh, if, uh, folks buying fishing licenses or hunting permits, uh, they have an option to kick in some money to. And this would create that opportunity that, that we w we don't have within, uh, without doing this.

So let me, let me ask this. Um, the part that I have is the movement of $2 million every year from the tiff into this fund. Um, now if you want to create the fund and have people voluntarily fund it, and then have federal matching outta the volunteer dollars, I get that. I'm, I'm okay with that. But it's the taking of the $2 million out of it. Um, if that were removed, is that something that you would no longer wanna move forward with the bill on?

I would have a, a hard time moving forward because I'm not sure we would get the, you know, would, we'd lose that, uh, the opportunity for matching, uh, federal dollars without having an opportunity there that we've gotten specified. But we do have, uh, DOT in the audience if they could maybe explain why they felt like this would be a good place for it. I mean, I, I guess, yeah. Okay. Uh, thanks.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, we took a look at the projects that we've either constructed or have programmed currently, um, over the last three years. There are 20 projects totaling approximately $34 million. Most of them are wildlife fencing.

by which a public employee who has been charged criminally but is, uh, that the case is ultimately dismissed, is able to recover attorney's fees. It allows them to recover that, uh, once a jury has been imp paneled as well as, um, a certain amount of time after the preliminary hearing. Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I move that Senate Bill three 16. Be read for a third time.

Thank you Mr. President. Uh, this bill deals with the ability of public employees who have been charged with a criminal offense and the scope of their duties, uh, to recover attorney's fees when they are found not guilty or the case is dismissed at the preliminary hearing. Um, it allows them the ability to recover, um, uh, at the preliminary hearing or 45 days after the preliminary hearing if the case is not dismissed. Um, but then they're later, later acquitted. I'm happy to answer any questions.

I move that Senate first substitute Senate bill, uh, excuse me. I move that Senate Bill three 16 pass.

Thank you Mr. President. Motion to encircle Senate bill 2 8 1 2 81. Senior Nutrition private donation. We have a motion to encircle Senate bill 2 81, Senate bill 2 81. Senior Nutrition Private donation incentives.

Thank you Mr. President. We are just waiting for the fiscal note to catch up with the bill. It has now we've had a good discussion. Again, this is, uh, opportunity for us to strengthen through the private sector what we're doing to take care of our aging seniors that are, that were strengthened via some nutrition, nutrition assistant Meals on wheels. That'll be glad to yield. We're gonna

Yes. I I'm just waiting for