Legislators / Daniel McCay
Daniel McCay
Republican · Senate District 18
Hear from them directly
Contact Sen. Daniel McCay
- Email: dmccay@le.utah.gov
- Phone: 801-810-4110
- Office: 350 N State Street, Ste. 320, SALT LAKE CITY, UT, 84114
Constituents get priority, so say you live in their district. Writing about a specific bill? Open it and use Take action for a ready-to-send message.
Watch or join a meeting
Every committee hearing and floor session is open to the public and streamed live on le.utah.gov. Each committee's agenda has the link to watch or join online, and how to sign up for public comment.
Daniel McCay serves on:
- Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environmental Quality Appropriations Subcommittee
- Transportation and Infrastructure Appropriations Subcommittee
- Business and Labor Interim Committee
- Revenue and Taxation Interim Committee
- General Oversight Committee
- Senate Business and Labor Confirmation Committee
- Senate Revenue and Taxation Confirmation Committee
- Revitalization Zone Committee
- Senate Judicial Confirmation Committee
- Senate Business and Labor Committee
- Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee
- Senate Rules Committee
What they've said
356 remarks on 79 billsH.B. 513 Attorney General Funding Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks to move an amendment and refers to the amendment number on the online record. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 4:31Read what they said
Senator Macal. Thank you. Our move to amend amendment number one on my name. That's online.
H.B. 513 Attorney General Funding Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains a one-word change to the amendment that was inadvertently left out. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 4:38Read what they said
We take a and and change it to an or It's a one word amendment that I inadvertently left out.
S.B. 12 Sunset and Repeal Date Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks the sponsor to read the list of sunsetted organizations in the bill.
▶ Watch at 16:36Read what they said
Is, uh, do you have a, uh, would you mind reading the list of all the Sunset at organizations or unsu sunsetted organizations? Uh,
S.B. 12 Sunset and Repeal Date Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Asks whether the bill removes any sunsets permanently.
▶ Watch at 17:26Read what they said
Thank you. Are there, uh, in that bill, are there any sunsets that are being removed for permanent purposes?
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Moves to concur with the House amendments to the bill.
▶ Watch at 43:55Read what they said
Thank you President. I'd like to make a motion to concur with the house amendments.
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the bill had a $250 fine for the reporting violation, that the House changed it to match the $100 state filing fine, and that he supports the amendment.
▶ Watch at 44:02Read what they said
The house made a change. Uh, we had a fine in the bill, uh, for $250 for violation of the reporting requirement. The state, the current state filing requirement is a hundred dollars for a fine. So we figured it Municipal races, state races, we could treat 'em all the same, have the same fine. So I don't know how we caught that differently when we were drafting the bill, but the house made a good decision, made the amendment and, uh, I support it.
H.C.R. 8 Concurrent Resolution Directing PEHP to Establish the Weight Management and Obesity Pilot Program · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explained that the resolution would let PEHP cover GLP-1 drugs for weight loss as an alternative to bariatric surgery, and moved that the substitute resolution pass.
▶ Watch at 57:19Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. Uh, the purpose of this resolution, it was, uh, started by Dr. Barlow in the house and the purpose of the resolution is to make it so PEHP will cover alternatives to bariatric surgery or, sorry. Yeah. Am I saying that right? Yeah. There we go. Bariatric surgery for the state health plan. Currently that's covered and is currently, um, you know, people, uh, that qualify where the people have A BMI over 40, or sorry, me, meet the medical criteria of over 40 BMI or over 35 BMI with certain co um, comorbidities. What this will do is this allow PHP to have, um, you know, to offer the GLP one drugs, uh, and use …
H.C.R. 10 Concurrent Resolution Directing PEHP Regarding Hormone Replacement Therapy · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Moves that all bills on the third reading calendar be returned to Rules.
▶ Watch at 1:03:45Read what they said
I move that all the bills on the third reading calendar be returned to rules. I was going to make Motion to lift the bills on the third reading calendars from the third reading calendar and return them back to their home. And the rules.
H.B. 236 Truth in Taxation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the substitute responds to Tax Commission concerns about boards without an executive, changes who is the principal and when, and should keep mayor budgets from proposing property tax increases before May, with a drafting fix to follow by amendment.
▶ Watch at 1:10:52Read what they said
Yes. Thank you President. Um, when we, uh, af when we passed the bill last time and favorably recommended it and everybody moved forward, it was a great bill. Uh, right after we passed it, we got a notification from the tax commission that there was a difficulty administration in administering how the bill, uh, language called out boards that are not, not managed with an exec, like more boards that don't have an executive, um, like, you know, like a city for example, uh, in some forms of government. And so we had to come back reshuffle a little bit and work on it. Uh, really what uh, really the change we ended up making is fairly minor and …
H.B. 236 Truth in Taxation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the amendment corrects a subparagraph reference from four B to four C in the third substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:12:36Read what they said
Yes. Uh, I needed to change, I need the, uh, in moving amendment one to third sub line. And if you'll notice on line 1 93, we just have the wrong Paradise, we have the wrong subparagraph. Um, highlighted instead of four B, it needs to be four C And that's the purpose of the amendment C amendment one in your name.
H.B. 236 Truth in Taxation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Moves that the third substitute H.B. 236 pass as amended under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 1:13:42Read what they said
Thank you President. I'll move the third substitute house bill 2 36. Truth and taxation amendments as amended pass under suspension of the rules.
H.B. 236 Truth in Taxation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the substitute makes changes made after working with stakeholders to how the initial budget is proposed.
▶ Watch at 1:21:06Read what they said
Yes. The substitute makes some changes after working with stakeholders, uh, to improve the process on how the initial budget is proposed.
H.B. 236 Truth in Taxation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Describes an amendment that adds clarifications on the property impact schedule, definitions, and the timing of proposed rate increases.
▶ Watch at 1:21:58Read what they said
Yes. Um, this adds further clarifications to lines 1 74, uh, about a property impact schedule. Uh, and there's definitions in the bill about what comp is what constitute a property impact tax, uh, impact schedule. And then also clarifies, uh, the fiscal year taxing entities, uh, proposed rate increase as it relates to, um, as it replaced to the, uh, to the subdivision.
H.B. 236 Truth in Taxation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Moves that the second substitute of H.B. 236, as amended, pass under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 1:24:10Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. President. I'll move the second substitute house bill 2 36 Truth and taxation amendments, uh, as amended pass under suspension of the rules.
H.B. 361 Elections Provisions Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Describes H.B. 94 as a cleanup bill for court fines passed last year, noting that a person ordered to pay a court fine may also be required to complete a class or rehabilitative treatment. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:30:01Read what they said
Senator Weiler. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, this is a cleanup bill for the court fines, uh, bill that we passed last year. Currently, if someone is ordered to pay a court fine and complete a class or rehabilitative treatment,
H.B. 54 Boating Safety Education · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents H.B. 54 as adding safety questions on speed and proximity to the existing quagga mussel boater exam, with a rental-company exemption and a DNR sticker for Bear Lake rental boats.
▶ Watch at 1:55:38Read what they said
Thank you very much. President House Bill 54 is a, uh, is a simple bill, really. Uh, we, we've taken the sponsor. Originally the plan was to create a safety test and add it to the QA muscle test. The difference though, uh, when, you know, we reviewed it with the committee, uh, there were concerns about having a second test and working with DNR. What we ended up doing was taking the QA muscle test, compressing the time on both where we said both should take no longer than 20 minutes. So we're basically adding a couple of safety oriented questions to the boatings, uh, to the QA mussel exam that every boater will take to get on Utah's …
H.B. 54 Boating Safety Education · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Says the bill is ready for a motion and moves to pass the first substitute of H.B. 54.
▶ Watch at 1:58:27Read what they said
I feel like I should drag this out a little bit, don't you? I think we're ready for a motion. Alright, Fine. First I, I'll move the first substitute house bill 54 voting safety Education pass.
H.B. 495 Capital Felony Case Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Sen. McCay presents the bill, describing changes to capital case procedures including intellectual disability screening, appeals, post-conviction counsel, federal review timelines, competency challenges, and the costs of the death penalty.
▶ Watch at 2:35:29Read what they said
Thank you President. This bill seeks to eliminate unnecessarily delays in capital cases. Uh, it contains an express statutory mandate that all capital cases should pri be prioritized and expedited and it makes the following changes in the process for challenging the death sentence. This summary is organized chron chronologically through the various stages of the capital case. First, the trial pre-screening, they do pre-screening. Now for in intellectual delay or intellectual disability, the constitution prohibits death penalty for someone who is intellectually disabled to avoid going through the time and expense of seeking the death penalty. Only to have the defendant argue long after the fact that they're intellectually disabled a status that does not change over time. The …
H.B. 495 Capital Felony Case Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Sen. McCay describes crimes committed by people on death row, says the bill fulfills a promise made to victims' families, and moves to pass the substitute bill.
▶ Watch at 2:49:27Read what they said
Thank you very much. You know, you know the crazy thing about the death penalty is the person, the murderer, frequently because they live on, they become the ones that, that are infamous famous. You know, their, their names be become known in the public every time their hearing is covered. Every time the facts of the case are told. It's, it's frequent that we forget the victims. One of those victims, Lance Conway wood student at SUU kidnapped by two men raped arms, broken throat cut and left for dead. Kd and her mother Beth Blind, partially handicapped from Murray, arrived at a cabin where two people were hiding out. Within minutes, the women were shot and killed. Husband …
H.B. 535 Disposition of Public Property Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Explains that the amendment is cleanup language relating to an easement and how it relates to the fair market value of disposed property.
▶ Watch at 2:54:04Read what they said
Thank you. This is, uh, some quick cleanup language that related to an easement and how it relates to the fair market value of Disposed property.
H.B. 535 Disposition of Public Property Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Describes the bill as closing a loophole so that subdivisions of the state must give proper public notice, such as signs or advertising, when they sell real estate, and offers to take questions.
▶ Watch at 2:54:27Read what they said
Thank you very much. This is a quick bill. Um, what we found was a loophole in, uh, in, in reinvestment areas that allows, uh, that allowed, you know, uh, subdivisions of the state to give away real estate, uh, without putting proper notice or signs or anything like that on the property. And so the purpose of this bill is to just, uh, we've been working with the cities and working with the, working with the other subdivisions of the state just to make it so that there's proper advertising when a piece of real estate is sold to the public, much like the state has to. But that Mr. President, happy to, to yield to questions.
H.B. 495 Capital Felony Case Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Sen. McCay asks for a motion to uncircle House Joint Resolution 28, which amends court rules related to capital felony cases.
▶ Watch at 2:54:50Read what they said
Thank you. Just, uh, I won't belabor this. Uh, this one will be much quicker. Do I need A motion to Uncer motion? Yeah, A motion to encircle house joint resolution 28 joint resolution amending court rules related to capital felony case. You have a Motion to Uncer first subject to house joint resolution 28.
H.J.R. 28 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Related to Capital Felony Cases · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Presents the proposed amendments to court rules on capital felony cases, covering appellate Rule 23B on remands for ineffective assistance of counsel, criminal procedure Rule 27 on stays of death sentences and competency petitions, and when temporary stays must be lifted.
▶ Watch at 2:55:11Read what they said
McKay. Thank you President. I'll have to call the Senate in just a moment just to make sure. Uh, so we need 20 to, uh, to amend court rules, but as part of the presentation we talked about the, the amendments that need to be made to the process. One of them is the rules of appellate procedure Rule 23 B to no longer allow capital cases with a death sentence to be remanded to the trial court for ineffective assistance of counsel. And this coordinates with changes in house bill 4 95, which would require the claims to be brought in a post-conviction petition for relief rather than a direct appeal. That's a, that's a good consolidation piece. And …
H.J.R. 28 Joint Resolution Amending Court Rules Related to Capital Felony Cases · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Moves to pass the first substitute of H.J.R. 28, amending court rules related to capital felony cases.
▶ Watch at 2:56:40Read what they said
Thank you. I'll move The first substitute house joint resolution 28 joint resolution amending court rules related to capital felony cases. Uh, pass.
H.B. 212 County Formation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Answers that a new county would not require a new senator, since senators are not assigned to specific counties and there are 29 senators and 29 counties.
▶ Watch at 3:11:42Read what they said
Only if there is benevolent as the other 28 of you. Okay. Uh, to be honest, all since we don't really establish, since Senator Ipson aren't really assigned counties and that's, you know, uh, believe it or not, in history we didn't actually ever assign to counties. It's just we ended up with 29 counties and we have 29 Senator Vickers. Um, but yeah, it would not require the addition of a new senator.
H.B. 212 County Formation Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026
Waives summation and moves that the first substitute of H.B. 212 pass under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 3:12:13Read what they said
Thank you. I'll waive summation and move The first first house, first substitute house bill two 12 County formation amendments passer suspension of the rules.
H.B. 366 Judicial Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says a microphone button was pressed by mistake and then begins to make a motion, which is cut off in the captions. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 6:54Read what they said
I, I pushed the wrong button up here. There we go. That's all right. I'd like to make a motion to ceremonial unc Uncer uncer.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the bill sets a clear process for a municipality or other jurisdiction to leave a municipal service district, clarifies which areas it applies to, and addresses how the district and departing entity divide responsibilities in an orderly way.
▶ Watch at 8:50Read what they said
Thank you president. Um, the bill now just makes it so that there's a clear process for how, uh, a, uh, you know, a municipality or other jurisdiction might leave a municipal service district. Uh, it leaves, uh, basically cleans up some language about, you know, what areas, uh, and how it applies to certain areas. But the key parts of the bill are really how the divorce process works when people are leaving special districts, uh, and makes it so that a, a district, uh, or the entity can leave the district in an orderly fashion and, uh, not leave the district in a position where it's worse off. Um, but also lets the district make its own decisions …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Thanks the president and says the House made minor language changes to the bill that he supports; moves to concur with the House amendments.
▶ Watch at 15:46Read what they said
Thank you President. Uh, house made some, uh, mining minor language changes in the, uh, in the bill and, um, supporting it. So with that, I'd like to make a motion to concur with the house amendments.
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the House Rules Committee made changes after talks with the governor's staff, including language on administrative rules, and says he is okay with them.
▶ Watch at 30:55Read what they said
Thank you President. We made, uh, over in the House, uh, rules Committee. Um, we identified a couple of issues, uh, after and after talking with, uh, the governor staff. Uh, we worked out the issues of the language, uh, related to the administrative rules. Um, you know, changes feel like these changes, uh, make the executive branch happier and I'm okay with them.
H.B. 147 Government Form Submission Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Moves that the Senate refuse to recede from its amendments to H.B. 136.
▶ Watch at 1:01:07Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. Uh, make a motion that the Senate refuse to recede from its amendments
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Presents H.B. 136, Unlicensed Driver Amendments, describing a case where an unlicensed driver was cited repeatedly before a fatal crash and explaining that the bill requires impounding a vehicle when law enforcement finds the driver unlicensed.
▶ Watch at 1:13:05Read what they said
an unlicensed driver pol was pulled over three times in one month for driving without a license. In every circumstance, he was given a citation and he continued to drive without li a license because law enforcement has the discretion as to whether or not to impin a pound a car for a driver who is not licensed. The last, his last time being pulled over, he was also cited and allowed to continue to drive away. 25 minutes later, he crossed the center divider and collided head first into Jane's husband who was killed. Jane is one of more than two dozen. Jane is just one more than two dozen fatalities on Utah roads since 2024 and among thousands …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says a fifth substitute bill is available online but he does not want it, and asks to double-check before moving on.
▶ Watch at 1:14:40Read what they said
I'm being told there's a fifth sub online, but I don't think I want the fifth sub. Lemme just double check. I apologize. Sorry. I just wanna make sure that we don't miss, Uh, Senator Escamilla. I
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Yields for questions and says he needs time to decide whether to use the fifth substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:15:05Read what they said
Yes. It will give me enough time to figure out if we want the fifth sub.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that fines are meant to discourage behavior and that raising this fee is intended to discourage the behavior the bill addresses.
▶ Watch at 1:15:36Read what they said
Thank you. We, we use fines for lots of purposes, but the primary def the primary purpose of a fine in the criminal justice system is to try and discourage behavior. And the primary objective in raising this fee is an effort to, again, discourage that behavior.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the additional fee pays for testing, including drug testing, that a person must pass to qualify for a driver's license after a revocation or suspension.
▶ Watch at 1:16:39Read what they said
Senator McKay? Thank you. So when a person's driver's license is revoked or suspended, they do testing to, it includes drug testing, et cetera, to make sure that the person can qualify for a driver's license again. And that is the purpose of that additional fee, and that's what it would go towards.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says he needs to consult the policy analyst for the answer and asks for a motion to circle the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:17:33Read what they said
Senator McKay? Hang on just a moment. Let me, I'm, I'm phoning a friend for the policy analyst to get that question For you. Thank you, Mr. President. Um, just give me, uh, maybe what we do is why don't we do a motion to circle really quickly. Lemme get an answer Mr. President Proti. And, and then I can come back and answer that question for the bottom All. Alright, we have a
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains the breakdown of the bill's fee increases, including the administrative fee change requested by the Department of Health and Human Services and the DPS increase for DUI enforcement troopers.
▶ Watch at 1:35:01Read what they said
Thank you. Senator Esee asked a great question about, about fine increases and so I, uh, reached out. I phoned a friend and now have better answers for her questions. Um, the total fee, uh, is $600. Now from 425, it's, uh, there was a $60 administrative fee, which is a $30 increase and that was at the request of Department of, uh, health and Human Services. Um, $29 goes to the DMV. There's no charge, no change in the fee there. $187 to DPS and $40 of that increase is DP S's request to fund additional troopers for DUI enforcement. $20 goes to the brain and spinal cord fund and there's no change there. So that is the rest …
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Says DPS's interpretation is that the fine does not delay the ability to obtain a driving privilege card, unless other language is found.
▶ Watch at 1:36:43Read what they said
Okay. According to DPS, the answer is it does not delay. That, uh, does not delay that the implementation or the ability to get a driver's privilege card as a result of receiving this fine Mr. President, Unless you can find language otherwise, but that's their interpretation.
H.B. 136 Unlicensed Driver Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Moves that the substitute bill H.B. 136, Unlicensed Driver Amendments, pass.
▶ Watch at 1:37:43Read what they said
You President. I promised I would be fast. I move that forced substitute house bill 1 36 unlicensed driver amendments pass.
H.B. 408 Data Sharing Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Moves to encircle House Bill 73, Public Employee Retaliatory Action Amendments, and the motion passes.
▶ Watch at 1:55:49Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. Uh, motion. Motion to encircle house bill 73. Motion to encircle house bill 73, public employee retaliatory action amendments. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Roll the motion passes.
H.B. 73 Public Employee Retaliatory Action Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Moves that House Bill 73 pass under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 1:58:06Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you very much. With that, Mr. President, I will, under suspension of the rules, I'll move that house. Bill 73 public employee retaliatory action Amendments pass.
H.B. 445 County Government Land Purchasing · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Explains that the bill bars a county from acquiring real property in another county without that county's express permission, except joint acquisitions under an interlocal agreement, and makes county-owned property outside its boundaries subject to property tax.
▶ Watch at 2:41:03Read what they said
Thank you very much. President. This is the bill that, that's been worked out with the counties. Um, the, uh, what ended up happening, uh, is inside of a county boundary. If a county acquires land in the other, in the other county's county boundaries, they get defacto land use control of a neighboring county's property. And so the idea here is not to extend the incorporation boundaries of a county by purchasing property in another county. Okay. And, uh, so what the bill does is it, it it prohibits a county from acquiring real property in another county through exchange, purchase or lease unless the county where the property is located provides express permission. And the county's acquisition is …
H.B. 445 County Government Land Purchasing · Senate floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026
Moves that the third substitute of H.B. 445 pass under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 2:43:08Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. I move the third substitute house bill 4 45 county government land purchasing, uh, pass under suspension of the rules.
S.B. 47 Reauthorization of Administrative Rules · House Health and Human Services Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Presented Senate Bill 47, the annual reauthorization of administrative rules, and explained the removal of a time requirement that was tied to certain licensing hour minimums.
▶ Watch at 0:39Read what they said
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Um, so I look at, uh, senate bill, uh, remind me the number again, I apologize. 47. Thank you. Senate Bill 47 is our annual rules reauthorization. Uh, until I was made the chair of the committee, I voted no on this bill many, many times, uh, just in protest. And I think that's how, uh, I think that's how I got put in charge of the committee as I voted no, uh, anyhow. Uh, but this is a general rules reauthorization, uh, where we authorize, uh, the administrative rules for the executive agencies. Um, in the bill. You'll notice there's a few sections that were taken out, uh, that are not reauthorized. And, …
S.B. 47 Reauthorization of Administrative Rules · House Health and Human Services Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Answered a committee question by identifying the four areas of rules being addressed, and said the hour requirements are kept while the time requirement is removed.
▶ Watch at 2:45Read what they said
Yeah, it's that part that I was talking about. The veterinary, the veterinary, uh, the burglar alarm, the elevator mechanic. And, uh, psychologists have their rule requirement in their, uh, in rule, uh, for the number of hours as it relates to licensure. And we're keeping it at the number of hours, but we're removing the time requirement. So just those four areas that are hit. Yep. Okay. Perfect.
S.B. 47 Reauthorization of Administrative Rules · House Health and Human Services Committee · Mar 4, 2026
Thanked the committee for its work on the bills.
▶ Watch at 4:59Read what they said
Just thank the committee for their work on the, on all these bills. Thank you.
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · House floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Presents the bill, saying it clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the committee and expands its membership to match other committees.
▶ Watch at 33:59Read what they said
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this is a bill that we had worked on over the interim, uh, to, uh, bring some clarification to some of the roles and responsibilities of this committee. We were also looking to, uh, expand some of the numbers on the committee to make it more in line with what the other committees we have within, uh, the legislature are. And so with that, I'll end the presentation on it.
H.B. 280 Third Party Litigation Funding Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Moves to suspend the rules to hear a Senate bill.
▶ Watch at 2:40:34Read what they said
Thank you. President. Motion to suspend the rules. Motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of hearing a Senate, senate bill.
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Explains the changes in the fourth substitute, including removing veterans program changes and focusing on the indigent and circuit breaker programs and a state deferral program with ongoing county funding.
▶ Watch at 2:41:32Read what they said
Yes. Um, after a lot of consideration, honestly, we've been negotiating this bill throughout the session. We've substituted obviously a few times. Uh, we have taken all of the mentions of the veterans programs that we were gonna send to the county level. We've taken all the veterans programs out and now we're focused on, uh, the indigent and the circuit breaker program, repeals and, uh, and pushing those down to the county level for their abatement programs. And then creating and, uh, supporting the state, uh, deferral program for those purposes and those purposes only. Uh, the other part, uh, with the substitute is it provides ongoing funding to the, uh, to the counties for the loan program, for …
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Says the changes to veterans and active-duty programs were removed, so those programs stay as they currently exist.
▶ Watch at 2:43:16Read what they said
No. President. We, uh, originally what we were doing is we were taking those programs and pushing 'em down to the county level so they'd be locally assessed. Right now, those programs are locally assessed, but state controlled, the idea be the idea that we had in the very beginning was to make them locally assessed and locally controlled. Um, after just significant negotiations, we couldn't get to peace on, uh, on that piece. So we just removed any changes that there, that there were to the veterans programs or to the active duty programs. And those are all removed. So, so to be sure that, uh, there's no change in the substitute Correct. Uh, to the veterans program. Correct. …
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Describes the deferral program, base-year property tax options by income level, and the circuit breaker program being moved to county certified rates.
▶ Watch at 2:44:22Read what they said
Thank you President. Um, the Senate bill 78, now four substitute. Uh, basically I did a pretty decent description. Um, the key elements of this bill, if you wanna scroll down, uh, for fun, uh, you can look down, I think it's in the 16 hundreds. Hang on one second. Get there myself. Okay. So you'll start to read in the, um, about how the deferral program will work. This is going to be a, what I believe is a big value add. What I hear from a lot of constituents, 1694, if you wanna follow along. Um, what I hear from a lot of constituents at town halls related to property tax, especially our seniors, is they're concerned about …
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Says a letter signed by all Utah counties supports the program as a positive step for seniors and abatement programs.
▶ Watch at 2:48:43Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. President. I have a letter signed by, uh, by all the counties of the state of Utah that all support this program. Uh, and they believe in this policy shift and feel like it is a step in a positive direction to help seniors and also shore up our abatement programs.
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Says deferred amounts earn 3% interest and that the two prior deferral rates have been consolidated into one program.
▶ Watch at 2:49:18Read what they said
Thank you. The deferred amount, they will get a preferred 3% interest rate. Okay. Last year we had two deferral rates, one was 2%, one was 3%. We've done away with all that. We simplified it significantly, and that's the part the county's really worked hard on was trying to consolidate the program. So that's only one program, but there will be a 3% interest that is charged on that money so that when the taxpayer is paid back on those deferral, it will make that incremental interest value.
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 43) · Mar 4, 2026
Waives summation and moves that the fourth substitute pass under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 2:51:54Read what they said
You President. I'll waive summation and move that four substitute hospital 78 property tax relief amendments pass under suspension of the rules.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair asked whether new definition language covering any mode of power generation extends the bill to electric motorcycles. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 54:42Read what they said
Okay. Alright. Lemme see if I can out brammer brammer. Just kidding. Um, on lines seven 11 through seven 16 is the definition of motor. There's new language in your bill that says, regardless of the mode of power generation. Mm-hmm. So we are extending this to e motorcycles, e-bike motorcycles.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair asked which bill was Rep. Cutler's this year. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 56:03Read what they said
Yeah. I was trying to find, um, in this bill is Representative Cutler's bill this year?
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair identified it as House Bill 381, on the Senate second reading calendar. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 56:22Read what they said
Let's see, I'm looking at House Bill 3 81, it's currently on the second reading calendar in the Senate.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair turned to line 1072 on the $50 administrative impound fee plus towing and storage fees. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 56:45Read what they said
I was looking at his, and I'm like, I'm not loving his necessarily either. So thanks for drawing that to our attention. I'm just kidding. Just kidding. Uh, so, okay. Um, anyhow, that, I mean, that's a interesting question to deal with there. And then the other part I was looking at was line, let's see, where was I? Line one one 1072 says, if the I empowerment was made under and talks about the impoundment pay an administrative impoundment fee of $50 plus pays all towing and storage fees to the place where the vehicle or vessel outboard motor is stored.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair said typical towing impound fees run around $250 to $270. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 58:50Read what they said
Okay. So, uh, the VIN number, so me and my bike are gang buddies. Mm-hmm. Um, when we hang out on our minibikes mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Um, our, our impound, your impound fee, if you're towed it's like $270, $250, something like that. Um,
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair noted the bill also requires towing and storage fees and that these bikes retail for about $400 to $700. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 59:23Read what they said
Yeah, that's the administrative administration fee. But when you, when you look under 10 74 and it says, pays all towing and storage fees to the place where the vehicle vessel are out. So my my concern is these bikes are retail 400 to $700 ish.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair expressed concern that statutory towing and impound costs could exceed the value of the bikes and questioned calling tow trucks when a parent could pick one up. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 59:45Read what they said
Me and my biker buddies, we, we price these all the time. Mm-hmm. Right? Mm-hmm. Um, but, you know, looking at the, looking at the price, I'm a little bit concerned that the impoundment itself, if we take the statutory rates that are guaranteed to tow trucks and that kind of stuff for, you know, for impounding, I'm a little bit concerned that the price of the impoundment is going to exceed the price of the vehicle. Mm-hmm. And we're gonna end up owning a whole bunch of minibikes. Mm-hmm. Hmm. We, Which the trooper back there is really excited about. Uh, he's, uh, you can tell he rides 'em all the time, but, uh, yeah. Maybe he's got a …
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair said he could not find a distinction in the bill between VIN and non-VIN bikes for impoundment. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:02:20Read what they said
Okay. That the intent. And if it's not that way, then I would, I would be, yeah. 'cause I don't see a separation. I don't see a separation for towing based on vin, not vin, um, sorry, I'm just flipping through and I was trying to find, but I didn't see the segregation in the policy between vin, no VIN as to where they're impounded versus can't be impounded. So that's my, sorry, I'm just c can't follow it to the end of the road, you
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair asked Sen. Harper about impound classification and fees for bikes with and without VINs. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:03:22Read what they said
Okay. Uh, I think I've, I think we've beaten the dead horse a little bit. Um, I know our staff can help me look that up and see if we can find where the VIN designation is, uh, in the bill. Um, anyway, with that separation, I don't know if Senator Harper iss the transportation king, I'm wondering if he knows more about that component or not, but Ask the question. We're trying to figure out, uh, we're trying to figure out the classification for where the impound and what the impound fee would be if it is a vin, you know, if the, if the bike has a VIN as opposed to not having a vin.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair asked what statutory towing and storage fees apply on top of the $50 fee in line 1072, which also holds parents accountable. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:08:56Read what they said
So my question, uh, my question was, uh, on the fee, yes. Um, we charge a $50 fee, but then it says, you know, the ordinary and customary towing and, uh, and I'm trying to remember what line that was. It was seven, maybe it was thousand. What, 1,072 if I remember right. Yep. There it is. Thousand 72. If the impoundment was made under, you know, that subsection, which is the part that refers to not letting the parents off the hook. So it convicts the parents just as much as the, uh, as the child, which I'm really glad my boys are over the age of 18 now, uh, pays an administrative impound p of $50 and all …
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair confirmed the $50 would be in addition to impound and storage fees. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:10:05Read what they said
I'm sorry. Um, so this would be $50 in addition right. To those impound and storage fees specifically for a violation of this section?
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair said staff may locate the code section on the cost. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:10:14Read what they said
Yeah. Okay. That's what, that's what I needed. Yes. I'll, uh, Mr. Gasser might be able to get us a, uh, uh, gosser. I think I'm always saying that wrong, but maybe he can get me where that, uh, code section is on, on what the cost is, but yes. Okay.
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair said he opposes the bill because it makes parents criminally liable, which could jeopardize military parents' security clearances, but could support it if that is addressed. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:16:53Read what they said
I do have a one thing that I was gonna add, but I don't wanna add first. Um, I just so you know, I struggle with prox with proxy liability or proxy crime, criminal behavior. Okay. So when we assign liability to, or we're gonna create a misdemeanor liability for their parents, and the reason I say that is with Utah, having so many military personnel, if you add a misdemeanor conviction to this parent's record, you, you may jeopardize their security clearance and their ability to perform their job on either hill or one of the other bases around the state. So I I'm a no, but I'm a no because of the, not the other issues sound like …
H.B. 561 Use of Motorized Vehicles by Minors Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 3, 2026
The chair said that precedent elsewhere in code does not ease his concern. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:19:07Read what they said
Telling me that we're offending that principle in other parts of code does not necessarily make me feel better. But at the same time, I appreciate that we do, you know, it's like we reserve the right to be hypocrites at any moment. Right. Um, but, you know, anyways, I just throw that out there as that's my issue with the bill, but, um, but there we are.
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Introduced SB 167 as the product of a summer working group and invited group members to present.
▶ Watch at 57:06Read what they said
Okay. Thank you. Senate Bill 1 67 is a work product of a working group we had over the summer, uh, and we were working on reintegration plans for that purpose. I've decided, uh, to give my work group committee members an opportunity to present the bill. Uh, as soon as they're done signing in, That'd be great. Please make sure you, uh, tell us your name, who you represent, if any, please sign in. Thank you. And, uh, uh, as you're probably well aware, we do have a full committee, so we do wanna hear from you. But, uh, please be brief in your remarks.
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Noted the bill's fiscal note of about $237,000, mostly for foster youth childcare, and said the five-day records timeline came from a constituent's concern about a student reintegrated before records arrived.
▶ Watch at 1:01:00Read what they said
Okay, thank you. I'll, I'll just add, there is a fiscal note on the bill for 237,000. Um, there are a couple components to that. Um, part of that is, um, to cover childcare for, for foster youth. Uh, that were, we actually, I'll say this, we actually think that this is an answer to the bill last year, and not necessarily to language this year, but the Senate has already, uh, you know, a agreed this morning to to fund that, uh, and work on, uh, you know, dealing with, dealing with that childcare need. And so, um, that's that primary purpose. But this bill came to me as a result of a constituent who reached out, who had …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Said accurate records are important for safety and turned the question to school experts.
▶ Watch at 1:03:42Read what they said
Well, we know how important that is, right? So that the records are, are accurate so that we can deal with these safety issues as they're needed. I'm gonna turn over to my school experts for just a moment and give them a chance to shine on the issue. How's that?
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Said the broad school safety incident wording may need narrowing to the list of required reportable offenses and that the intent is to give districts flexibility, with possible floor amendment work. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:05:24Read what they said
Yeah, I mean, that's a great question. Um, you know, as you look at it, the school safety incidents could be a, a broad term and maybe what we can look at is potentially using that to, uh, you know, relate to the section that, um, uh, that enumerates those that are required. Right? So maybe that's, maybe that's the better way to handle that component. And I Think the intent here is to give flexibility to the LEA. If they want to deny a student and they have, they have grounds for that, this isn't too restrictive, it gives 'em enough flexibility to say, you know what? We're gonna push pause on this until we get some more things …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Said the bill addresses students who transfer before an expulsion is completed, not the reasons for transfers or expulsion decisions. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:07:27Read what they said
I don't know that the expulsion, this has really been once a student has been determined to have committed an offense and, and it's really dealing more with the transitory nature of these students, um, if that answers your question, But it hasn't necessarily been aimed at the reason that they're transitory. Right? Sure. To your point, this is really just a, making sure that when they are transitory, 'cause a a lot of times expulsion, you know, they may not get to the expulsion level, they may leave. Hmm. Right. And so that's, that's what we were having the problem with is what happens if they just leave and there's not an expulsion. And so how do we close …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Said the two coordinating bills are still being reconciled, may be merged into one, and that answers would come later.
▶ Watch at 1:08:46Read what they said
Both. We had this conversation this morning and I don't know yet the answer, if that's fair. Um, uh, can I answer that later on today? Okay. I don't know. In other words, we're, we're trying to preserve the policy at the same time, uh, you know, uh, deal with, uh, with the realities of, of being in a similar policy area and make, making them coordinate. We may abandon and just go to one bill. Uh, right now my bill has a fiscal note, ironically, and Hearst is not, uh, which also is, you know, uh, we, we don't understand how that's in the same policy area, but so we're, we're trying to figure that out. I think you've …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · House Education Committee · Mar 3, 2026
Asked the committee for trust that the working group can reconcile the two bills and said only one will pass if they remain identical.
▶ Watch at 1:11:54Read what they said
Well, um, uh, I appreciate the committee's time, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I hope that you'll extend to me the trust that we can, with our working group effort help us straighten this out. Uh, I don't know that this necessarily need to a no vote, so to speak, um, but I can assure you that if we're stuck with the exact same policy, with the exact same bill, only one will pass. Thank you. And to the pon to the maker of the motion, I will waive.
S.B. 189 School District Funding Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves to circle First Substitute Senate Bill 273 on license plate amendments.
▶ Watch at 11:19Read what they said
You Mr. President. Thank you Mr. President. Motion to encircle senate bill first substitute Senate Bill 2 73. License plate amendments.
S.B. 189 School District Funding Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the substitute bill was not yet online and asks for a minute before again moving to circle the bill.
▶ Watch at 11:32Read what they said
While the motion passes, the bill is Uncircled. Senator, I apologize. President, I thought the sub was online. It is not. Give me one more minute. I'll be back there. I apologize. I'll be right back. Can you take a motion to circle? Motion to circle again? Sorry. Motion
H.B. 308 Homeless Services Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves to encircle first substitute H.B. 258, Insurance coverage amendments.
▶ Watch at 15:40Read what they said
Thank you President. I'd like to make a motion that we encircle first substitute house bill 2 58.
H.B. 308 Homeless Services Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the bill was debated last week but ran out of time when the Senate switched to Senate bills, while he was off the floor negotiating other issues.
▶ Watch at 15:58Read what they said
Thank you. We debated this bill last week. Uh, ran outta time when we switched to Senate bills, uh, 'cause I was off the floor negotiating on other issues.
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Describes the bill as requiring that health benefit plans covering certain sex transition procedures also cover procedures to reverse them, reports no questions, and moves that the bill pass.
▶ Watch at 16:02Read what they said
'cause I was off the floor negotiating on other issues. But basically, uh, the simplest, this bill is very simple, even though, uh, you know, it's just looking through, it just requires that if a healthcare benefit, uh, covers certain procedures to, uh, that they, that a health benefit plan covers certain procedures to reverse a sex transition. If the health benefit plan covers certain treatments or procedures to effect effectuate a sexual tra sex transmission, uh, transition. With that Mr. President, I'm happy to yield to questions. See no questions on this bill. We had quite a bit of discussion, uh, on one second, but I'm gonna go to you for summation and a motion. Thank you. I'll move …
S.B. 288 Medicaid Provider Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves to encircle SB 262 and SB 263, which concern law enforcement use of unmarked vehicles.
▶ Watch at 55:17Read what they said
Thank you. Present motion to encircle Senate bill 2 63 Senate bill 2 62. We have a motion to encircle Senate bill 2 62. 2 62. Law enforcement usage of unmarked vehicles. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves to adopt the third substitute for the bill.
▶ Watch at 55:52Read what they said
to substitute and there are a few substitutes online, so I'd like to make a motion that we adopt the third sub.
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explains that the substitute reflects work with law enforcement to reduce concerns about the bill's effects.
▶ Watch at 56:05Read what they said
Yes. Uh, I've been meeting diligently with law enforcement trying to find a place where, um, they're not gonna set up speed traps just outside my house. And I think we've gotten to a place where, uh, they're less annoyed.
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explains the bill's purpose of ending the use of unmarked vehicles for traffic enforcement, citing safety and visibility, and lists the permitted exceptions.
▶ Watch at 56:46Read what they said
Thank you president. So the purpose of the bill is to end a practice of using unmarked vehicles for traffic enforcement. And the primary policy objective behind it is to focus on safety rather than enforcement. Research shows that having a police vehicle be noticeable, improves road safety. And I'm gonna quote a study, but I don't have the number in front of me, but it's 25 to 30% more than enforcement does. So that visibility just be having a police officer that is visible in traffic or on the side of the road slows down, makes drivers pay attention, uh, improves, uh, safety and improves, you know, as we improve visibility. And so when you use unmarked vehicles for …
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says law enforcement groups have reviewed the language and have not yet taken a formal position, and argues the bill focuses on visibility rather than enforcement.
▶ Watch at 59:19Read what they said
Well, Senator, Senator McKay Yes, on board is a great question. Um, like I said earlier, I think less annoyed is probably a better description of where everyone is. We have been working with the, uh, with the Sheriff's Association and we've been working with, uh, UHP, uh, they've reviewed the language and like I said, I think they're at a position of less annoyed, not necessarily in favor, but at the same time, this is always that balancing act, right? Where, and I know law enforcement likes to have as many tools available. If you'll remember many, many years ago, uh, ran language that was first in the nation for body cameras and body camera rules and policy. And …
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Responds that red and blue lights are being used to impersonate police and that a visibly marked vehicle gives drivers peace of mind during stops.
▶ Watch at 1:05:13Read what they said
Senator McKay? Thank you. Um, Again, you know, we've seen, uh, and there are incidences now and we're seeing, you know, more of them occurring because on, uh, you know, websites, you can buy red and blue LED lights that you can install in your car. We are seeing an increase of incidents where people are using those red lights to pull people over. It really is unfortunate. Um, my original, this originally came to me from a constituent, um, who expressed concern, uh, that she was, uh, pulled over late at night and, uh, when she was pulled over late at night, uh, it was a vehicle on the side of the road. I was doing speed enforcement. Um, …
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Summarizes the bill, responds to hypothetical scenarios about infractions and misdemeanors, and moves that the third substitute pass.
▶ Watch at 1:13:09Read what they said
Thank you very much, president. Um, you know, it's interesting, uh, you know, trying to get through these. So there are a couple of hypotheticals I figured I'd address on line 27 in the bill. So I'd encourage everybody to look at it really quickly. Traffic infraction law means a law that is a violation that is classified as an infraction under 41 6, a traffic code or a local traffic ordinance. So in that scenario, a individual in, in one of the scenarios mentioned earlier, an individual going a hundred miles an hour, an unmarked vehicle could still pull that individual over because that is a misdemeanor. Now it is not a, an infraction. As a result, the unmarked …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Describes the fourth substitute of S.B. 97 as cleaning up multi-county appraisal trust language, tax commission language, and residential exemption enforcement.
▶ Watch at 1:27:31Read what they said
So, uh, we've taken, uh, in the second sub in the fourth substitute, we've cleaned up a bunch of the, um, multi-county appraisal trust language. We've cleaned up the, uh, with the tax commission. We had to address a couple of concerns as it relates to the residential exemption and how it's to be enforced and, and managed. And so that's the purpose of the fourth sub. Uh, the fourth sub also has an amendment that Representative Musselman, um, did, uh, that, uh, we'll talk about here in just a minute. But that's, uh, that's the purpose of the fourth sub.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explains the amendment, which would bifurcate the residential exemption between primary residences and rental or second homes with a slightly different rate, and says the choice is up to the Senate.
▶ Watch at 1:29:13Read what they said
Okay, everyone, I want just for just a moment. I heard from some of you on this policy and Representative Musselman was kind enough to prepare the amendment. Um, let me, let me explain what the amendment is, what the amendment does. And I placed this at your mercy. It is at your decision. This is the smorgasbord of policymaking today. Um, so, uh, if what one policy we looked at in this bill early on in the session was bifurcating the residential exemption, saying that currently on a person's primary residence, on a primary residence for anyone, they get 45% off the value. So let's say hypothetically that is a million dollar home just for round numbers. They only, …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the bifurcated exemption could create a tax incentive for owner-occupied homes, with a 5% differential that would raise taxes slightly on rentals and lower them for owner-occupants, and lists other housing policies the state has used.
▶ Watch at 1:34:33Read what they said
Great. So what this, so let me just, I, I'll, 'cause I think Senator Winterton asked a great question. We have up here, we have attacked various policy levers to try and deal with housing affordability. Okay. One way that we have dealt with housing affordability is we have created a first time buyer buyer program and used state money to incentivize, you know, first time buyers into new construction. Right? That, that's one another. We created accessory dwelling units. Uh, so, you know, we overrode local control, uh, about, you know, accessory dwelling units. Um, a third, we, you know, we've still had the debate and we have this debate this year, uh, even more. But there's always this …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Thanks colleagues for the policy discussion on tax issues.
▶ Watch at 1:39:05Read what they said
You very much, president. Okay, well that was fun. Thank you for talking tax with me. That was awesome. I appreciate it. Um, I, I appreciate the policy conversation. I really do hold
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says he will present the bill and asks to recall the motion after a missed call for division.
▶ Watch at 1:39:16Read what they said
Yeah, I just gonna present the bill. This senate, I missed a call for division. So Fi uh, if there's division, I'm gonna recall the bill. I don't need five or more standing, so I'm gonna go and re recall the motion.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Presents the remaining parts of the bill: limits on local government reserves with a sliding scale, a new definition of new growth tied to new service needs, and changes to tangible personal property related to the end of a CRA.
▶ Watch at 1:40:21Read what they said
Okay, thank you. Let me tell you what's left in the bill and give everybody a, uh, I can't tell you how much. I just appreciate the conversation. Seriously. That's awesome. Um, okay. So what's left is, uh, we did a reserve study and what we found is at the cities and county level, there are problems with over reserves. And honestly, I'm gonna add the state to that list. Uh, we have accumulated large reserves and in my tax brain, policy brain, uh, you know, when you have large reserves, that is an em emblem of either over taxation or underinvestment, right? In public good. And the people expect that if you charge tax dollars that you, you know, …
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explains that the bill closes a reporting loophole by requiring annual candidate reporting for municipal elections, and reporting for campaign accounts that still hold a balance.
▶ Watch at 1:40:38Read what they said
Uh, realize there's a loophole that doesn't require candidate reporting at the municipal level on an annual basis. Uh, and this basically codifies that requires that annual reporting and also requires reporting for campaign accounts and candidate reporting for municipal elections after, uh, you know, throughout the term until, uh, and even after they're elected, while they have a balance in their account or they report a balance in their account. With that Mr. President, I'm, uh, happy to yield the questions.
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves that SB 321, Municipal Election Amendments, pass. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:41:14Read what they said
Okay. I'll move that. Uh, Senate bill 3 21 municipal election amendments. Uh, pass. Thank
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves under suspension of the rules that the fourth substitute of S.B. 97, as amended, pass.
▶ Watch at 1:45:17Read what they said
Un under suspension of the rules. I move that fourth substitute Senate bill 97 as amended pass.
S.B. 247 Road Funding Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves that several House bills be lifted from the third reading calendar and placed after another House bill. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:52:20Read what they said
Senator McKay Mcal for another. Yeah. Thank you. I move that the following bills be lifted from the Senate table. Third reading calendar and placed after second substitute house bill 3 93 house bill 2 0 9. Third substitute house bill 78 house bill one ten Third substitute house bill 1 46. House bill two 90 and house bill three 90. Substitute one. That is the motion.
H.B. 221 Coercion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves to encircle Senate Bill 47, reauthorization of administrative rules.
▶ Watch at 2:17:13Read what they said
Thank you. I'll make a motion to encircle, uh, Senate bill 47 reauthorization of administrative rules.
S.B. 47 Reauthorization of Administrative Rules · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Explains that the substitute removes licensing requirements from administrative rules that were meant to be changed by a bill passed last year.
▶ Watch at 2:18:01Read what they said
Um, happy to explain the difference. Um, go ahead. I'm just pulling up the Utah code section here real quick. In the qualifications for licensure, um, we ran a bill and this legislature passed a bill this last year that, um, that changed some of the requirements for licensure. Unfortunately, some of those qualifications, uh, that we were, the efforts to change them were actually found in administrative code and not just in state code. So we're amending out those provisions in administrative rules, uh, that were, that we thought were done in a bill last year.
S.B. 47 Reauthorization of Administrative Rules · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the substitute removes rule-based experience requirements so they can be viewed concurrently, as the prior-year change did for statute.
▶ Watch at 2:19:09Read what they said
Slightly different. Oh. Um, the, uh, as it relates to licensure, and I'm, I apologize. Uh, my, um, my brain is a little bit frozen at the moment. Um, but the, uh, as it relates to licensure, we changed it so that the experience requirements, uh, that were viewed consecutively can be viewed concurrently. When we changed that last year, some of them were in rule as opposed to somewhere in statute. So we did away with all the ones in statute, but we didn't do away with the ones in rule. So this will do away with those requirements in rule.
S.B. 47 Reauthorization of Administrative Rules · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Says the rules cover alarm companies, alarm system monitoring, and an approved psychologist supervisor, and were coordinated with Rep. Thurston's prior bill.
▶ Watch at 2:20:04Read what they said
Thank you. Um, great question. Uh, one of them has to do with, hang on just a second. Uh, one has to do with alarm companies, uh, and people that are, you know, monitoring alarm systems. Uh, that's two of those. The fifth one, hang on one second. Uh, let's see this one. Uh, the last one is an approved psychologist supervisor. Sorry, I didn't look very closely. Uh, we coordinated with Representative Thurston who, uh, who ran the bill last year to make these changes. And so, uh, making these changes, uh, in the administrative rule and pulling those parts out is just again, consistent with what we did in the prior bill.
S.B. 47 Reauthorization of Administrative Rules · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Describes the bill as the annual reauthorization of administrative rules and says the licensing changes are the reason for the substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:21:19Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, that's, I mean, I basically presented the, the crux of the bill we're reauthorizing all the administrative rules. Um, luckily as the, the chair of this, uh, as the chair of the Administrative Rules Committee, uh, we get this bill and we have to run it every year. Uh, if we don't, the governor has emergency provisions, so we always leave it out there. And fortunately, Representative Thurston uh, brought these licensing issues and that's the reason for the first sub. But otherwise, uh, that's the purpose of the bill and I'm happy to answer questions on the bill.
S.B. 47 Reauthorization of Administrative Rules · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves that the first substitute for S.B. 47 be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 2:21:58Read what they said
Thank you. I'll move that. Uh, first substitute Senate bill 47, be read for a third time.
S.B. 47 Reauthorization of Administrative Rules · Senate floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026
Moves that the first substitute for S.B. 47 pass under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 2:22:06Read what they said
We're passing these clear across, oh, under suspension Rules. Even better. So under suspension of rules, I move that first substitute Senate Bill 47 pass
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says he wants to hold the bill and asks about concerns that the safe harbor is overly broad.
▶ Watch at 1:04:06Read what they said
Thank you. Mr. Or, uh, Mr. Chairman, um, I like to make a motion to hold the bill, but first I wanna ask a couple questions if that's okay. Okay. Yeah. Thanks. Um, representative, there were a couple of concerns brought up. One was, um, that it's overly broad in the safe harbor precision. I think that's what somebody was saying. Can you give us some light on what you think that means
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks for clarification on whether customer service chatbots would be covered.
▶ Watch at 1:04:55Read what they said
Okay. So help me understand what you mean. There's two different types there. One, you're talking about customer service, which those are not human interaction components. Those are, those are a separate, you know, tool. Are those the ones you're saying they get safe harbor?
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Expresses concern that the definition of simulating a relationship is too broad and could cover customer service tools.
▶ Watch at 1:06:28Read what they said
Hmm. Okay. So that's much broader than I thought we were talking about originally, because when, as I look at 3 99 and 400, um, you know, it, it's, it's an, or it's not an, and, and the way you described it was that it's an and, and not an OR. And so I'm just, I'm just looking at it saying from a specificity standpoint, if I look at these two, simulates a relationship with a user as a very, very easy hurdle to, uh, to accomplish. I mean, if they enter their name right, and thereby now, hey, you know, Dan, yada, yada, yada, right? Like they, they assume, uh, the conversation style of having a relationship, right? And …
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says industry testimony opposes the bill as overbroad, raises concerns about the penalty amount, and asks who is behind an opposing group.
▶ Watch at 1:08:58Read what they said
So I appreciate that, but yet the industry is here testifying against the bill because it's overbroad and they don't feel like the language is taking into account their concerns. And not only that, but we're talking about an administrative fee, uh, a fine of $2,500 for each violation. I start looking through some of those things, you know, if industry showed up and said, yeah, we appreciate where these things are going and this makes sense. Let, that's great. Um, last year we had the interoperability issue and we had very broad definitions. And in talking to industry, they've decided to ignore it. And so, you know, and, and for all all intents and purposes, you know, we're, we're …
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks which industry members support the bill.
▶ Watch at 1:10:56Read what they said
So you mentioned industry, Mr. Chair, uh, you mentioned industry. So what, what members of industry do support the bill?
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks about the donors and representation of a group that supports the bill. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:11:28Read what they said
I you are welcome to share that. Also, The only one that I got hit up by a text message was secure AI in favor of the bill. Do we know who their donors are? Do we know who they're, like, who they represent from the industry?
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks for a list of donors for the supporting group. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:11:46Read what they said
But have we, I mean, we, we asked about the donors on the other side. Do we have a list of the donors for them?
H.B. 438 Artificial Intelligence Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says his main concern is the breadth of the requirements and penalties, and that he is not hearing strong industry support.
▶ Watch at 1:11:52Read what they said
Yeah. So this is my overarching concern. My overarching concern is the depth of what's being asked, the strictness of the penalty that's being required. And when you add all those components, I worry that a net that is supposed to catch only offenders is going to catch a lot more than, than the offenders that we intend. And so, you know, it's that law of unintended consequences. I, I'm looking at this and I'm, you know, we're this late in the session, um, you know, I'm just not hearing a lot of support from industry about, you know, thinking that we're headed the right direction as far as the policy is concerned. I don't know. That's, those are, those …
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks why the tax is based on manufacturer's price rather than retail price.
▶ Watch at 1:39:56Read what they said
Thank you very much. Um, I should know the answer to this. I do not remind me why we're at, we're at a percentage of manufacturer's price as opposed to retail calculation.
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Argues a retail-based tax would be more transparent for consumers and asks if that could be considered.
▶ Watch at 1:41:08Read what they said
So It'd be a lot more if you went off the retail price than if you went off the manufacturing price. Yeah. So that's that. I mean, that's part of it to me. Um, you know, one of the things that is nice for the consumer is when there's a tax, they can see, they can look at the price of something, they can multiply at times the rate. It's extremely transparent, fair, you know, that kind of component. Uh, when it's not those things and it's based off some other number, uh, you know, anyway, that's my, if we were gonna fix something in this bill that made me like it more, is that we would get away from …
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Repeats that he would prefer a retail-based tax since manufacturer's price is not visible to consumers.
▶ Watch at 1:42:50Read what they said
Okay. Again, I, anyway, uh, I guess I haven't heard a great, this is why we do it other than that's the way we've always done it. If there's a, anyway, uh, I would love to see us get away from things we've already done or always done things and maybe, you know, set it based on our retail price. So it's at least a transparent tax component and, and people can predictably do it. 'cause the manufacturer's price. I don't know. That doesn't, that doesn't tell me anything. That's what I look at the cigarettes. That tells me something. I know I can look at the cessation projects and I, I can, I understand that. And then the other …
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says since the industry opposes the bill anyway, there is no reason to accommodate them.
▶ Watch at 1:44:31Read what they said
Okay. Well, they don't like anything about this bill, I don't think. No. And as a result, I'm not sure why we try and make them happy on any part of it. I mean, if they've, if they're gonna hate a bill, they might as well hate it all the way instead of like 99.
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Says he was offering an idea to strengthen it.
▶ Watch at 1:44:44Read what they said
Yeah. Well, I'm, I'm just trying to give you an idea to make it worse there. Thanks. Thank you.
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks whether her objection is that higher taxes could reduce use of pouches as a cessation tool.
▶ Watch at 1:49:40Read what they said
So the, the primary objection is, if I were to summarize your comments, Dr. Kumar, is that, that because the bottom line pouches and vapes are still better than the alternatives increasing the tax on these may decrease the number of people that use those products as a cessation device? Is that what I understand? Well,
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Presses her lightheartedly to answer.
▶ Watch at 1:51:21Read what they said
Come on. You've got a degree. You can tell me things I don't know. Okay.
H.B. 337 Nicotine Product Tax Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Votes no, saying he agrees with the policy theory but is not convinced the rates are right.
▶ Watch at 2:11:37Read what they said
Oh, sure. Sorry. Senator McKay. Uh, to avoid this being unanimous, bill, I'm gonna vote no, but the, I it's not that I disagree with the policy and I actually agree with the theory of, you know, lowering the base and increasing the rate. I, I'm there. I'm not convinced the rates are right. And so I'm putting a pin in that conversation so that we can, you know, avoids the unanimous feeling of those. And let's see if we can figure out a place to land this. There's plenty of time. Friday at midnight is not here yet. So it's a world away. It feels like we've got plenty of time. So there you go. Yes, sir.
H.B. 493 Consumer Products Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks how other states handle these weights and measures violations.
▶ Watch at 2:29:33Read what they said
Thank you very much. Um, how do these, how do these weights and measures violations? You know, they ramp up pretty quickly from 500 or thousand to 5,000, you know, whatever. Um, how do these compare, you know, industry-wide, so to speak, as far as, you know, how is everybody else dealing with this same issue?
H.B. 493 Consumer Products Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asks that timelines between violations and clarity on per-incident versus per-bag counting be added, and says he can support the bill with those changes.
▶ Watch at 2:41:43Read what they said
I just ask that, you know, uh, like the representative said, uh, let's build in, let's build in some timelines to make sure that we're spreading that out and getting that. I'd also like to see some clarity on per incident versus per bag, uh, type of thing. You know, I, it, as I was looking through the bill, it didn't make that part of it super clear. And so let's just make sure that we, you know, have that part, you know, figured out. But for that, I can support the bill. Just keep moving it forward.
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked how HB 387 and SB 45 overlap and conflict.
▶ Watch at 3:18:47Read what they said
Thank you. So, uh, house Bill 3 87 and Senate Bill 40 45, how do they work together? Where's the overlap and where do they conflict?
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked what a manufacturer would face if all the kratom bills passed.
▶ Watch at 3:22:17Read what they said
Thank you. Does that help? Okay. Yeah, No, Don't go far. What, what I'm, what I'm trying to figure out in, in this is, I mean, we've got different bills. Senator Vickers has his proposals on taxation regulation. That component then Senator Mikel has his pieces and now your pieces layered in there. And, uh, I think I'm, what I'm trying to figure out is, okay, let's assume they all pass and I'm a manufacturer. What, what now, you know,
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Said having the law in one location would be better for manufacturers.
▶ Watch at 3:23:47Read what they said
Yeah, that's what I was gonna say. My preference would be if I was a manufacturer or, you know, yeah. Somebody else trying to follow the law. Having this in one location is much better than having, you know, three different, you know, directions to try and figure out what to do.
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Raised concern that vape and smoke shops are now designated as kratom sellers.
▶ Watch at 3:24:15Read what they said
Yeah. Okay. Well, I guess, uh, you know, okay, so that being said, let, let me ask this, you know, one piece that I was somewhat concerned about, um, with the, you know, crate retailer and, and that kind of stuff. Now it seems like we're, for a while it felt like we were not super excited about vape and smoke shops, that kinda stuff being the purveyor, and now we're saying this is the right seller of the help me.
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Remarked on the many moving pieces. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 3:25:30Read what they said
Okay. Boy, what a party. A Lot of moving pieces. And I it, like you said earlier,
H.B. 387 Kratom Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Asked jokingly whether supporting the other bill means opposing this one.
▶ Watch at 3:25:55Read what they said
Yeah. Okay. So I think if I like ML'S bill, I don't like this bill.
S.J.R. 18 Proposal to Amend Utah Constitution - Legislative Duties · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Mar 2, 2026
Presents S.J.R. 18, which would remove the requirement that the regular session meet on consecutive days so leadership can schedule meeting days, with the aim of making legislative service more accessible.
▶ Watch at 8:29Read what they said
You know, I was going through my calendar this last year and, um, you know, I don't know about you, but I'm starting to wonder if the legislative process isn't starting to feel like a full-time job. Is anybody here feeling that way more and more? Um, unbeknownst to most, uh, we have the 45 day legislative session that's included in the Constitution. Uh, we have nine interim days between the appropriations committees and, uh, our regular appropriations committee hearings. We have nine. Uh, for, for me, it's nine confirmation hearings at minimum, assuming that it's only one confirmation committee that doesn't include usually pre-meetings that go along with those confirmation committee, uh, hearings or confirmation hearings or issues. Um, …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Explains the second substitute's change to tiered reserve percentages based on city general fund size, says the purpose is to respond to requests, and says he intends to circle the bill to allow more review.
▶ Watch at 37:27Read what they said
Thank you very much. Uh, if the committee looks at the comparison between the two, the primary differences between this is, uh, I didn't catch something when the drafter sent, uh, sent me the second substitute. Um, that, you know, we had the, um, the reserves capped at a hundred percent of the prior years, um, property tax revenue. And instead, uh, we're working on a, we worked on this sub to make it so that it's differential based on size of the community or size of the city. And so that line, hang on, I'm just looking for that. I think it's up in line 80, if I remember right. Oh, si. Line 68. Uh, yep, there we go. …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Explains that the substitute treats rental properties differently from primary residences, with a 40% exemption for investor-owned rentals instead of 45%, so rental property can be measured for future policy.
▶ Watch at 40:43Read what they said
you for that question. Thank you. That's the other part that, uh, was in there, and I apologize, I didn't highlight it before. In lines 1 57 to 1 68. Um, it was news to so many people that there is, uh, that rental homes, uh, that rental properties are, um, treated the same as, uh, as primary occupied or primary owned homes residentially occupied. And so what this does is it sets up an exemption that is different between those two. The Constitution allows the legislature to determine how those, uh, exemptions are set up. And what this is, is this is, uh, it will say that if you are the primary owner and you're living in your primary …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Says a mother-in-law apartment within a primary residence would not be subject to the differential, while separate rental properties would have a separate tax ID.
▶ Watch at 42:41Read what they said
Senator McKay, Thank you. A person. Thank you for asking this. Uh, I actually have one and I'm actually renting one out, so this is a good point. Um, but I also own, uh, other residential rental properties. And the mother-in-law apartment that is a part of the residence would not be, uh, would not be subject to tax or an A DU for that purpose. Right. Would not be subject to the differential because that's inconsequential to its ownership and we're not apportioning that ownership here. Um, instead, uh, this would be a, separately, a separate tax ID that is held only for the purpose of rent.
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Explains that S.B. 321 would require municipal candidates' campaign finance disclosures to be reported annually, similar to state reporting, until account balances reach zero.
▶ Watch at 1:26:51Read what they said
President. Senate Bill 3 21 is, uh, a bill that I think honestly until you're, uh, someone close to you runs for municipal office, you, you might not catch it. Uh, Senate Bill 3 21 is dealing with financial disclosures as it relates to, um, uh, municipal candidates right now during the election year, candidates in in cities are required to disclose their campaign finance reports and they do that through the city process. What happens after that during the rest of their time doesn't get reported until the year that they run for reelection. And if they never run for reelection, there is no account of that money that is in those, uh, that is in those accounts. So …
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 41) · Mar 2, 2026
Moves that S.B. 321 be read a third time and calls for the roll call vote.
▶ Watch at 1:28:20Read what they said
Thank you very much, president. I'll move that Senate Bill 3 21 municipal election amendments. Be read for a third time. Thank You. And the question is, shall Senate bill 3 21 be read a third time roll call
H.B. 309 Juneteenth Observance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Asks to put questions to the sponsor and is allowed to do so.
▶ Watch at 1:07:27Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. President. Um, I'm trying to decide if I ask a question. I, I'm, I'm trying to figure out will the sponsor yield do a question Or two? Senator Comore thinks a agreed to Yale. Yes. Go ahead, Senator McKay.
H.B. 309 Juneteenth Observance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Asks whether the public prefers a three-day weekend or a midweek break.
▶ Watch at 1:07:42Read what they said
Um, do you feel like the population prefers a three day weekend or do you feel like they prefer an interruption to the middle of their work week?
H.B. 309 Juneteenth Observance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Says state employees value holidays on Mondays or Fridays, and asks whether state courts and others are confused by the holiday timing.
▶ Watch at 1:08:17Read what they said
Senator McKay, Thank you. Um, it's interesting because I have heard from state employees on this issue who are really appreciative of the idea, uh, or of the ability to celebrate a new holiday or celebrate a holiday close to a weekend. Um, you know, the same employees though, you know, they've asked to change July 4th to the same program or Pioneer Day to the same program where we don't have holidays in the middle of the week. It is well documented that holidays serve the workforce better when they are on the Friday or on Monday. So it is a day off and they, they get a longer break from the work. It also serves the employer better …
H.B. 309 Juneteenth Observance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Says few businesses interact with the federal government on that date, argues the change benefits a small group at the expense of state employees, asks for a no vote to keep the compromise, and suggests choosing a different holiday.
▶ Watch at 1:10:10Read what they said
Um, I, I'm just trying to think of other federal overlap places. E even title companies, you know, who tend to deal with both on the lending side of things, there are very few mortgages that are underwritten and recorded in the middle of the month, say between the 15th and the 19th, compared to mortgages that are closed and recorded between the 25th and the 30th, the 39 30 first. And the reason for that is because everybody's always trying to deal with odd days interests on closing when they're dealing with bank notes. So I'm just, for the life of me, I feel like we're making an exception for business folks that will be at the cost and …
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Described the bill's limits on hormonal treatment for minors after its effective date, explained that the fiscal note was resolved, and offered to yield for questions.
▶ Watch at 1:37:38Read what they said
Thanks, president. The, uh, fiscal note caught up with the substitute that we debated last night, and so, uh, figured we'd, uh, try to move it on from third. Um, but as a reminder, uh, this sets on line 44. It sets up again on, depending on January 28th, 2027, seven, healthcare provider may not provide a hormonal transgender treatment to a patient who is a minor patient, minor, if the patient would be younger than 16 years old of the, as of the effective of the date of this bill, or has not received any cross-sex hormones as of the effective date of this bill. So it will make it so that those who are, you know, gonna be …
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Said he was checking the bill language and gave January 28, 2027 as the ramp-down end date.
▶ Watch at 1:41:23Read what they said
Yeah, thank you. I'm just looking for the language in the bill to remind myself. I'm sorry. Maybe if I could rephrase the questions having talked to the originating sponsor, if I understand it correctly. Oh, go ahead, Senator. They would have until January, the January 1st, 2027, January 28th.
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Said he now understood the question, referring to January 28, 2027.
▶ Watch at 1:41:50Read what they said
that's in the, uh, that's okay. Now I better understand your question as of Yeah, January 28th, 2027.
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Waived summation and moved that the second substitute bill pass.
▶ Watch at 1:42:29Read what they said
I don't see any further discussion, so I'm gonna go to you for a motion. Thank you very much. Uh, I'll waive summation to move that, uh, second substitute house bill 1 74 pass.
S.B. 273 License Plate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Explains that the first substitute removes the license plate rotation provision from the bill for now.
▶ Watch at 1:48:29Read what they said
Yeah, thanks. Um, you know, the, there was desire in, in taking us down to having two standard plates at any one time. Uh, after significant conversations, we're gonna take the rotation piece out and consider it further at another time. For right now, the first sub, all it does is removes the rotation piece from from the license plate bill.
S.B. 273 License Plate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Presents S.B. 273, covering design approval for special group plates, design review board duties, driver license ID cards, plate visibility and replacement of all-metal plates, special group plate fund allocation, and a tax commission auction for low-digit plates.
▶ Watch at 1:49:14Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. Okay. Senate Bill 2 73 is a pretty simple bill that has a, uh, some, you know, some interesting parts to it. One, it amends the design approval process for special group plates. Uh, it changes the design review boards, uh, duties and responsibilities and how they deal with and handle designers. Um, it, uh, it also, uh, puts the driver's license identification card as part of the design review port. Um, and, you know, the update that needs that will be forthcoming on that process in the near future. Uh, it also deals with visibility and readability of license plates, including, uh, uh, this yesterday I was on the, actually it was this morning. I …
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
Explains the proposed substitute, saying it reflects county support, makes minor clarifying changes to the discretionary deferral program, sets a common interest rate for both deferral types, and has the state pay property tax abatements for deployed active-duty military.
▶ Watch at 1:53:43Read what they said
Yeah. Substitute. Uh, we, in meeting with the counties, we have unanimous support for the count from the counties on this issue. Uh, as we're trying to work through several of the last minute, uh, uh, button up issues, uh, we've, uh, made a couple of minor tweaks to the bill and made it more clear as to, uh, the discretionary, um, uh, the discretionary, um, deferral program. And for that purpose we've set a common interest rate between the two types of deferrals and, uh, also cleaned up, uh, and have a requirement that the state pick up and pay for active duty property tax abatements. So for active duty military, when they're deployed, the state will now pick …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026
McCay says stakeholders reached a consensus, with interest calculation concerns set aside for later study, and that a second substitute for S.B. 97 will address city concerns.
▶ Watch at 1:54:08Read what they said
as many tax meetings as I have this legislative session, but I really appreciate all the stakeholders working together. I think we've got Senate Bill 97 to a place of consensus. You've heard from a lot of your city council members and your mayors with concerns about interest calculations. What we've all agreed is to place a pin in that conversation. Talk about a little bit further on down the year. Uh, later on, uh, it's gonna be the focus reserve accounts and interest bearing accounts and benefits of those reserves is going to be an important topic of our conversation in interim and Revit tax, but it turned out to be too big a lift to, to complete during …
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Presents the bill, explaining that municipal candidates must file campaign finance reports while they hold leftover funds after leaving office, and that the bill would require yearly reports while a balance remains.
▶ Watch at 32:17Read what they said
You very much. Uh, is that working? Pull That over or push it. I can't remember. Hello? Yeah. Okay. That works. Yeah. How you doing? Radio voice. Okay. Um, I learned this this last, uh, year. Um, I, uh, am near and dear to someone who participated in municipal elections. And what the question came up when, uh, when she was finished with her municipal election, what do I do with any cash on hand? How do I report it? What happens as a result of this? And we dug into the code, and guess what we found out? There are no requirements after the person leaves office to file financing reports while there is balance in those campaign reports. …
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says the same limits on disposing of leftover funds apply to both state and municipal candidates, and the only difference is the lack of transparency.
▶ Watch at 34:19Read what they said
Yes. Yes. Mm-hmm. And is there kind of limitations on what they can do to dispose of the money to Yes. As they close the account out? Yep. The, the exact same limitations exist for both. The only difference is, is there's no transparency for it.
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says the rules on permitted uses of funds do not change and the bill only adds transparency reporting each year a candidate holds a balance.
▶ Watch at 34:39Read what they said
That doesn't change. This just requires transparency for every year that you're in office. And then every year after you're in office, while you have a balance in that account, that's all it is.
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says the issue was discovered late in the session and asks the committee to consider the bill for the consent calendar.
▶ Watch at 35:29Read what they said
Uh, the only thing I will say is it is late in the session when we learned that this was a problem. And so we adopted this, you know, this was a late bill ad so if the committee feels so enlightened, there has not been any objections thus far. And I feel like it's just something that's just been missing from code. I'd be happy to, I'd be happy if the committee would consider it for consent, promising that if any concerns or anything else comes up that while it's in the house, ID just like to give this a house committee as well. And that's what I'm racing against time. So Will that speed it up?
S.B. 321 Municipal Election Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Responds that the timing is uncertain and suggests leaving the bill's scheduling as it is.
▶ Watch at 36:11Read what they said
Uh, good question. I mean, we might get to it sooner, I guess. I don't know. Um, I can, um, let's just, I don't, you know, let's just leave it where it is.
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks where the $135 million collision cost figure came from.
▶ Watch at 1:36:30Read what they said
Okay. Seeing no questions, I'm just gonna ask, um, do you, where did the $135 million accident number come from and do we know
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks how the $2 million a year would be spent and how much annual savings it would produce.
▶ Watch at 1:37:05Read what they said
Oh, okay. Awesome. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, do we know how much, you know, if we commit 2 million ongoing every year to, you know, to the number from the, from the tiff, do we know how that money is going to be spent and how much annual savings we will save as a result of, in other words, I'd hate to be, you know, $20 million into, uh, the program and only see the number grow as a per capita as opposed to see it shrink? Right. That's, I guess the, the question.
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks why these projects are not funded through the existing TIF prioritization and why a special earmark is needed.
▶ Watch at 1:38:31Read what they said
Okay. I was thinking of like an intersection cost, so that's good. Okay. Thank you very much. Um, is there, the last question I had is, is there a problem with, you know, like I was thinking of the one in parleys, is there a reason these projects aren't being, you know, funded at the state level and the TIFF program? 'cause obviously the one in Parleys got funded. Is there a reason why we're creating a special process, you know, an earmark within the earmark, so to speak, for this process versus, I mean, I could make a list of all the other projects people would like to make an earmark an ear of an earmark of, and that's, …
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Explains the Transportation Commission's cost-benefit prioritization process and asks why wildlife crossings are not rising to the top of the list.
▶ Watch at 1:39:20Read what they said
Yeah. Uh, let me, so our current process with the TIFF is the transportation, uh, commission meets and they review, uh, identified needs throughout the state that they do traffic studies. They do all this other, you know, uh, magic work that goes into, you know, creating a prioritization list. That prioritization list then goes through and, you know, identifies here's the projects, here's the list, and they do a cost benefit analysis as it relates to the state and, and then make those decisions based on, you know, based on that data. And I'm, I'm wondering if, you know, we feel like there's a reason those types of projects, you know, like a wildlife bridge or whatever it might …
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether UDOT has a position on using TIF funds for this instead of congestion.
▶ Watch at 1:42:41Read what they said
Does you not have a position, uh, really on taking TIFF funds and using it for this purpose as opposed to congestion?
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Asks whether there is a study or map showing where crossings should go.
▶ Watch at 1:51:12Read what they said
Um, you know, it's, uh, it's interesting, have, have we studied this and we have like this kind of, I do. We have a map or anything that says absolutely this is
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Says he is convinced of the need but unsure this is the right funding approach.
▶ Watch at 1:52:10Read what they said
Yeah, I think that's a, I think it's an interesting point. Sorry, I'm just, I, um, I mean, I'm, I'm convinced there's a need, I'm trying to convince myself this is the right way to do it. I think that's the, I think that's the only part for me. So, go ahead, Josh. Thank you.
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Suggests the sponsor work with UDOT to make wildlife mitigation a criterion in the Transportation Commission's TIF priorities instead of an earmark, and offers to help.
▶ Watch at 2:05:16Read what they said
but here's, um, but I think Senator Fillmore is giving you a good council representative, and I'm wondering if we can't, um, I'm wondering if we can't consider this before the end of the session. And here's what, here's what I think we can do. If you'll meet with the U Dots representatives, um, Ms. Wilson, I think there's a way that we could accomplish what Senator Fillmore had, which is including wildlife mitigation as part of the tiff's overall priorities. And instead of creating an earmark, just give them counsel to the Transportation Commission to also include this, you know, wildlife mitigation as part of their priorities. I think one that will help you with the funding component and …
H.B. 431 Wildlife Crossing Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Reiterates his offer to help craft direction to the Transportation Commission.
▶ Watch at 2:07:41Read what they said
Yeah. I don't want you to feel like that dead eyeball staring back at you either. So, okay. Let's make sure we get that right. But I'm serious. I, I'm happy to help sit down and, and if there's a way we can help craft, you know, direction, the Transportation Commission as they weigh these things out, I, I'm more than happy to help. Okay.
H.B. 54 Boating Safety Education · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 26, 2026
Thanked the committee for a second look and said the bill could make a difference for safety.
▶ Watch at 1:59:32Read what they said
I just appreciate the committee giving this a second chance. Um, uh, you know, I'm hopeful that we'll make a big difference, uh, you know, from a safety standpoint. Thank the committee for their time.
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Explains that the substitute refines the dates so no new people are added after the effective date, and people already in treatment can continue without interruption.
▶ Watch at 1:42:37Read what they said
Yes. So, um, we met with, uh, you know, we met with people. We've working with lots of different people to make sure that the bill accomplishes the sponsor's objectives and at the same time isn't retroactive and doesn't put anybody in a position where they have to stop taking, um, you know, uh, hormone blockers or taking, um, you know, other sex therapies, uh, as a result of the bill, uh, and not make it backward looking. And so what we've done, uh, is we've refined the dates in the second substitute to make it such that from the effective date of the bill, uh, no new people will be added, but that people that are, uh, that are …
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Explains that the substitute would draw a brighter line for when the ban on hormonal treatments for minors takes effect, and yields for questions.
▶ Watch at 1:43:51Read what they said
Thank you very much. Um, we, you know, discussed this bill earlier this week, and, uh, I think what this will effectively do is it will take, um, what we had in statute before and effectively draw a brighter line for when the ban takes place, uh, as it, uh, relates to hor hormonal transgender treatments for minors, uh, and discontinue that practice. Uh, with that, Mr. President, I'm happy to yield the questions.
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Acknowledges that the substitute has no fiscal note yet and says he will circle the bill again. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 1:44:23Read what they said
You know, I, I don't know. You, You're right. Pardon me. You're right. So, So why don't I circle it again?
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Moves to circle the bill so the fiscal note can be caught up, with the bill probably run the next day.
▶ Watch at 1:44:28Read what they said
I'll make a motion to circle and we'll catch up the fiscal note and probably run it tomorrow. How's
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Presents HB 258 as requiring insurers that cover transgender treatments to also cover coverage for individuals who want to reverse those treatments, and yields to questions.
▶ Watch at 1:45:23Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. This, uh, this is a very simple bill, uh, and language is not very long. Uh, what it does is it says that if a healthcare provider is going to provide a, uh, provide for transgender therapy, uh, um, as it relates to, you know, any, any insurance provider that provides for, uh, transgender treatments also has to provide coverage for an individual that wants to go back. Uh, it's a really, uh, freedom, uh, and enabling, uh, provision in their healthcare such that somebody who wants to, um, you know, make that change, make that change and change their mind, has the ability to go back. With that, Mr. President, I'm happy to yield to …
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Answers that the fiscal note is zero because the bill is not expected to affect government entities beyond what already occurs, and does not expect the provision to be used.
▶ Watch at 1:46:23Read what they said
Go ahead. Uh, the fiscal note is zero because it isn't anticipated that it will affect governmental entities any more than it already does. So by my understanding, that means we don't expect to actually see this provision get used at all. So thank you.
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Moves that the first substitute of HB 258 pass or be read for a third time.
▶ Watch at 1:46:44Read what they said
Yeah, I'm, I'm impressed that he understood that. Um, with that, uh, I'm gonna move that, uh, first substitute house bill 2 58 insurance coverage amendments pass or be read for a third time.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Presents H.B. 429, saying it changes the relationship with a garbage disposal district that affects only one special district, and that concerns were worked out with stakeholders; opens the floor for questions.
▶ Watch at 1:48:54Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, this, this bill modifies, um, a relationship with the garbage disposal dis district. It only really impacts one special district. Um, I think we've worked out all the kinks with, uh, with the code and the first substitute and, uh, and met with all the stakeholders. Um, you know, been a lot of conversation about this bill, but I'm be grateful to cross this one off the list so that Mr. President, I'm happy to open, I'm open for questions. Senator McKay is open to questions to cross it off the list.
H.B. 429 Special Districts Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 37) · Feb 26, 2026
Moves that the first substitute to H.B. 429 be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 1:49:32Read what they said
Thank you. I'll move the house. Bill 4 29. First substitute, be read for a third time. Thank
H.B. 240 Carbon Dioxide System Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Moved to pass the bill out of committee favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:26:37Read what they said
We got a couple lights. Senator McKay? Yeah, I'll Make a motion then we pass the bill out favorably.
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asks what remedies the bill provides for people who were defrauded by someone practicing law without authorization.
▶ Watch at 1:35:38Read what they said
Um, so, uh, under this, under this scenario, um, do you know, maybe we can, we're dealing with what happens when somebody is unauthorized practice of law and we're creating, uh, that part of it. Are there remedies in here for claimants who have been told that they're the person representing them, or, you know, saying that they're practicing law? What, what remedies are in this for those who've been defrauded, so to speak?
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asks whether the bill includes civil penalties, in addition to criminal ones.
▶ Watch at 1:36:56Read what they said
Right. Are there civil penalties that attach as well after the criminal proceeding, after the criminal part of it is completed, or at the same time? I, you know, it doesn't matter. I'm just wondering if there's a, if there's a civil component to this as well.
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asks Seth Stewart whether he has a website ranking bills and whether he has spoken in favor of any bill this session.
▶ Watch at 1:40:33Read what they said
Uh, I appreciate you, you, you seem to weigh in. I'm wondering if you have a website that ranks them all. Um, I, I, I've been in, I've chaired a few committees now, and you've also testified that those bills are some of the worst bills. I'm, I'm, I'm getting concerned about all of them being the worst. Bill, have you spoken in favor of a bill yet this session? No. There, there are some that I've actually been supportive of various measures of. Okay. And, um, That's all I needed to hear. Do you have a website? Let us know when you get that website up, because I'd like to see your listing of top ones. Thank You Com. …
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Moves to pass the bill out with a favorable recommendation.
▶ Watch at 1:42:55Read what they said
Okay. I'll make the motion that we pass this out with a extra favorable recommendation.
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asks whether the substitute bill needs to be adopted first.
▶ Watch at 1:43:08Read what they said
I apologize. Did we need to adopt the sub or the sub has already been adopted?
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Withdraws his earlier motion and moves to adopt the substitute bill, HB0260S02, in place of the prior substitute.
▶ Watch at 1:43:12Read what they said
Can I withdraw my motion and make a motion? Yes. To adopt the sub? I was just looking at it and I I lost track of the fact that there's a sub and it needs to be adopted. So, uh, I'd like to make a motion that we delete in Title and Body House Bill two 61st substitute and replace it with second substitute house bill two 60.
H.B. 260 Unauthorized Practice of Law Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Moves to pass HB0260S02 favorably to the full Senate.
▶ Watch at 1:43:42Read what they said
Thank you very much. Uh, after that, we'd like to make a motion that we pass favorably, favorably, we pass favorably to the full Senate floor house Bill two 62nd substitute unauthorized practice of law amendments.
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Presented the bill, which adds two House members and one Senate member to the oversight committee to help with quorum, removes fixed terms of service, removes the monthly meeting requirement, and allows closed meetings for whistleblower complaints and sensitive matters, and noted a second substitute is available.
▶ Watch at 42:43Read what they said
Thank you very much. Uh, purposes. Bill is pretty, uh, is pretty general for the most part, or a few things to, uh, that we can discuss as a committee. Um, uh, clearly we've been on this path of, you know, trying to, you know, figure out best way to manage this committee. And what we found is it's difficult to keep quorum, believe it or not. And so, uh, we asked, uh, we've dealt with this over the interim. We got unanimous support from the committee on a bipartisan approach, uh, to adding two members of the house and one member of the Senate to the committee to help with quorum. There is not a partisan designation, so it …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Said he prefers not to require chairs to seek leadership permission for additional meetings, since sensitive situations may require meeting more than once a month, but deferred to the committee.
▶ Watch at 46:37Read what they said
Yeah. Um, what, what I've, uh, what I've tended to steer away from in my legislative career is the mother may I aspect that we constantly come up here, right? We don't trust our chairs. And so what we end up doing is we ask the chairs to mother, may I to ledge management all the time. So if you think that the committee needs a babysitter, by all means, uh, I'm happy to consider a babysitter if you feel like that's necessary. Uh, I've explained what the intent of the language is, but that is, you know, we, we don't feel like we need to meet every month, but there may be a situation that is so sensitive and …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Said a once-a-month cap would be a new restriction, and that the Speaker and President can already replace chairs as a check.
▶ Watch at 48:10Read what they said
It would be a new prohibition. We don't have that restriction now. So you'd be adding a new restriction on the committee that they cannot meet more than once a month. Again, we're not doing it. Um, I would say at that point, if the president speaker disagree with what the chairs can do, they can certainly change the chairs, right? So that's, I I would say there's a lot of checks and balances already built into our process. Adding another mother may I, is again, not my favorite. I'm Juab, I'm elected just like the president is. Right? Same number of constituents ish, right? Depending on growth. I don't know why they have a, I don't know why they're …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Invited the question, saying it would help him decide on the second substitute.
▶ Watch at 49:04Read what they said
Sub. Go ahead and ask it. It will help me think through what my preference is, if that's
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Explained there is no binding Utah or federal case law on the issue, described how legislators review proposed agency rules, and said the pause and governor public-hearing provision give the part-time Legislature an option when agencies will not reconsider a rule.
▶ Watch at 50:33Read what they said
Yes. Um, here's the, uh, so here was the impetus for the second sub and the rationale for it. Uh, there is not binding constitutional law on, in the state of Utah, uh, or at the federal level on this issue. Uh, there is a case in Minnesota, and they're dealing with, you know, that part of it, their rule was much more expansive, uh, and much more restrictive. It basically struck the rule as opposed to pause the rule. And so the question is, can this be part of, you know, can the administrative rules committee insert itself in the middle of the approvals process of a rule to say, Hey, while you're implementing this rule, if there's a …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Asked the committee to adopt the second substitute and said he would keep working with Rep. Peterson, possibly on a third substitute.
▶ Watch at 56:57Read what they said
Why don't we do this? Why don't we adopt the second sub and continue my conversation with Representative Peterson? We have a good relationship and we are great at working things out, and so I'm confident the two of us can figure that out and then come back with a third sub if that's needed.
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · House Rules Committee · Feb 25, 2026
Promised to keep working with Rep. Peterson, said the bill pauses rather than eliminates rules and requires a committee vote to do so, and described the committee as bipartisan and needing leverage to be effective.
▶ Watch at 1:00:25Read what they said
Center. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that. Um, and I promise you Representative Peterson, we have not had our last conversation, so we'll, we'll keep working on it. I, I am fully, um, a believer that March 6th at 1159 feels like it's a year away. So we have plenty of time between now and then to get it worked out. Um, the, the one, the one part I will, the one part I'll say is that, uh, you know, we've also been talking to the governor's office and they've expressed, you know, some concerns. The novel approach here that is different is that, and it's, it's substantially different, is we aren't eliminating a rule. We aren't taking it out. …
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Presents the bill, which sets a January 28, 2027 end date for hormonal and transgender treatment for minors, after committee amendments.
▶ Watch at 26:03Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. First substitute Senate Bill, or sorry. So first substitute House Bill 1 74. This is, uh, an extension of the policy that we've dealt with over the last few years, uh, related to, uh, you know, healthcare providers that provide hormonal and transgender treatment for minors. Uh, and what this does is, uh, after amendments by committee, uh, it makes it so that, uh, there will be a, um, that there will be a discontinuation of that treatment from January 28th, 2027, uh, from here on out. And with that, uh, basically we'll take the, uh, the effort to ban that we had a couple years ago, uh, and move it forward, uh, a little bit …
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Answers that the bill does not open the program to more people to receive this treatment.
▶ Watch at 27:23Read what they said
McCay, go Ahead. Yeah, thank you for that question. No, it doesn't open the window for more to, uh, for more people to get that, uh, for that type of healthcare.
H.B. 174 Sex Characteristic Change Treatment Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 36) · Feb 25, 2026
Moves that the bill be read for a third time.
▶ Watch at 33:03Read what they said
Summation and a motion. Thank You President. I'll move that. Uh, Senate bill, or sorry, house Bill 1 74. Be read for a third time.
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · House Education Committee · Feb 24, 2026
Presented Senate Bill 77, which makes corrections to Bridge teacher qualifications, helps universities work together to find teachers in six languages, adds proficiency assessments for grades 3 through 12 and 10 through 12, and directs the State Board of Education to report the funding needed for assessments to an appropriations subcommittee by October.
▶ Watch at 1:57:09Read what they said
Thank you very much. Senate Bill 77 is a consensus bill that we've worked on through the interim, uh, trying to, it's actually, uh, second year we've worked on it. Um, the primary goal is to reinforce and support our dual language immersion program. Um, obviously, I mean, I could say enough about it, but, uh, you guys have spent enough on the last bill. Um, Senate Bill 70 77 makes some corrections to the Bridge teacher qualifications. It helps universities work more collaboratively, collaboratively, together to find teachers for all of our students in six languages, uh, across Utah. It also adds proficiency assessments for grades 10 through 12, provides complete proficiency assessments to know how students are actually …
S.B. 283 Court Fees and Administration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Moves to circle the item briefly while a small issue is worked out.
▶ Watch at 28:38Read what they said
Senator McKay. Motion to circle for just a minute while we Work out a small issue. Motion to circle. All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion to circle. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?
S.B. 176 Landscaping Procurement Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 35) · Feb 24, 2026
Supports the bill with the substitute, calling it a modest, cautious approach to air quality that landscaping businesses are already moving toward.
▶ Watch at 1:39:53Read what they said
Uh, I'll, I'll, I'll speak to the bill a little bit here too. Okay. But go ahead. But with these, with the substitute and the exceptions here, I think this is a very modest approach to, to working on air quality issues that are, uh, usually a number one, two, or three issue in my constituency. And I think that this is the general direction that a lot of, uh, companies and landscaping businesses are going anyways. And so, again, this is a modest slow, cautioned, cautioned approach for the state to move in that same direction.
H.J.R. 10 Joint Rules Resolution - Sponsor's Supporting Information · Senate Rules Committee · Feb 23, 2026
Says he is more concerned that courts would rely on floor debate than on a prepared handout.
▶ Watch at 13:28Read what they said
Senator McKay, To answer that, I, to to that point, I've always been more worried they'll rely on our floor debate than they will on a, a pre-prepared presentation that has bulleted list and, you know, that information. I gotta be honest, some of the floor presentations leave something to be desired at times. I know that's, uh, surprising to everybody, but, you know, I've been, I guess I've been worried, more worried about floor debate controlling than I have been worried about a pre-prepared flyer that, you know, tries to be as accurate as it can. So anyways, that's just a thought and I appreciate that, Uh, representative.
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Presented SB 262 to limit the use of unmarked vehicles for traffic infraction enforcement, citing a constituent's concern about a stop by an unmarked vehicle and arguing that marked vehicles deter unsafe driving.
▶ Watch at 1:42:47Read what they said
Will do. Thank you. I didn't realize that, uh, judiciary and the entitlement we would follow the court's, uh, you know, speed and process as well. I did present Two. I'm gonna take that as a compliment. Thank You. I did present two other bills in the other committees in the last 10 minutes, so it did work out great. Well, that's re's fault. Yes. Well, I'm not blaming anyone. I just love it all. Uh, this is a constituent driven bill, Senate Bill 2 62. I got a call, uh, over the interim this last year, uh, that, uh, a young lady was pulled over in a, uh, not in a well-lit, um, area, and, uh, she was, well, …
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Explained that a marked vehicle with a visible light bar is more noticeable than a vehicle with hidden lights and that visibility helps address safety concerns.
▶ Watch at 1:47:35Read what they said
Yes, there is. And the distinction is clear that where the light bar is located is a very clear indication of whether or not I've got a, a marked police car or an unmarked police car. A light bar on top is open and notorious, even though it is small, it is open, notorious, it is known, right. Other vehicles driving by see that light bar on top, it knows that is a, uh, a marked vehicle. So I compare that to a light bar that is hidden behind the grill, okay. Which was the case in the constituent matter hidden behind the grill. And you would never see those lights. You could, I, I went, you know, and looked …
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Responded that the bill would shift traffic stops to marked vehicles or other officers, said exigent circumstances are addressed, and cited recent impersonation incidents.
▶ Watch at 1:52:46Read what they said
Good question. Uh, I think the, uh, the question of cost versus safety is, is the debate I have, right? Or the perception or feeling of safety. Um, but I, I'd go one further and say, I don't know how they would handle it. I mean, I, I've never, now I'm terrible, right? And I, I, I just think about dollars and cents. I don't understand. Um, you know, and when I worked for, you know, uh, full confession, I worked for the San Diego County Sheriff's Department when I was younger. Uh, back then, uh, officers, you know, uh, deputies did not have assigned vehicles per se, that they took home. Uh, you know, the sheriff at the time, …
S.B. 262 Law Enforcement Usage of Unmarked Vehicles · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 20, 2026
Asked the committee not to adopt the substitute, saying law enforcement groups had not responded to invitations to negotiate and that he prefers the original bill.
▶ Watch at 2:17:05Read what they said
I would ask us not to adopt that sub. And here's why I'm negotiating against myself with the first sub. My invitations with LELC and with the law enforcement community has been, would you like to talk and work out language? The response has been, no, thank you. We're just gonna oppose it. Because they think with their, you know, with their influence that they will just kill the bill. My, my proposal with this first sub was, Hey, this would be great language. Could you work with something like this? And the response says, nothing. So what I'd say is, I need this bill to move and I like it. I like the original version of the bill best, …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Presents S.B. 148, which renames the committee, adds three members, and changes its hearing, administrative rule, and Office of Administrative Rules provisions, and yields for questions.
▶ Watch at 5:56Read what they said
Thank you President. Uh, this is Bill hasn't changed much since the last time we, uh, talked about it. Um, left it on the board. We're still working on some, uh, um, some negotiations with the executive branch. Uh, but we're getting to that time of the session where we need to move it and if we need to make changes over in the house, we'll do that and bring it back on concurrence. So, um, basically the long and short of this committee, uh, long and short of this me, uh, this, uh, bill is, it now, um, changes the Rules Review and General Government Oversight Committee to General Oversight Committee. Uh, it adds three members to the, uh, …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Moves that first substitute S.B. 148 pass.
▶ Watch at 7:23Read what they said
Okay. I'll move that First substitute Senate bill 1 48 General, general Oversight Amendments Pass.
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · Senate floor debate (day 31) · Feb 20, 2026
Presents S.B. 167, which makes minor changes to reintegration plans for disciplined students, improves communication between prior schools, current schools, and courts, and lets schools share information when a plan is needed for safety reasons.
▶ Watch at 9:32Read what they said
Thank you. Uh, in full confession. I forgot this bill was circled up there, so, uh, should have moved it while ago. Uh, here we are. Uh, Senate Bill 1 67 just makes minor changes to a reintegration plan and, uh, makes it so that, um, uh, that when juveniles are reintroduced to the school, that they, there's proper communications between the previous school and the current school and the courts. Um, in that situation, uh, this, you know, improves transparency. It also improves the ability for schools to communicate when a reintegration plan is needed for school safety reasons. Uh, we worked with a lot of stakeholders on this and, um, they all reminded me that the bill was …
S.B. 298 Programmable Money Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Moved to pass the substitute bill out favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:34:19Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you. I'll make a motion that we pass the bill out with favor. Recommendation
H.B. 193 Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Framed the bill as an insurance cost-control question, comparing cash versus insured procedure costs and arguing newer procedures with cheaper cash alternatives need not be covered by public employers.
▶ Watch at 1:56:43Read what they said
Yeah, he was really still there. I've never seen him be that completely still before, so I was very impressed. Um, you know, uh, what is the difference between, um, do you know the difference between costs, like at a, on a cash basis, how much it costs to, you know, uh, to, we talked about breast augmentation, right? What does it cost to do breast augmentation or an insurance plan versus, uh, you know, someone doing it on a cash basis? Is there a, do you know if there's a difference between those two? Wow, that's a really great question. I have not looked at how it's billed or those types of things. No, Luckily, I have done a …
H.B. 193 Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Said employee benefit costs are significant and for many this is a dollars-and-cents conversation rather than ideology.
▶ Watch at 2:06:50Read what they said
Yeah. And I, I, I will say this also, I mean, there, uh, you know, this, we, we are having this debate right now on another, on another bill, uh, I think it sent a bill 2 29, if I remember right. But we're talking about employee benefits and how much it costs, and there's a real fiscal cost to all of those things. I guarantee that if we put how much we're putting, you know, towards each employee's healthcare program as part of the fiscal note, uh, you know, for some of these, it would be, uh, a significant issue as well. So anyway, I just, uh, you know, if this bill was written differently and said that we're …
H.B. 193 Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Thanked the public and moved to recommend the bill favorably.
▶ Watch at 2:29:51Read what they said
Thanks, uh, appreciate all the public comment. Uh, it is, uh, always helpful to hear public comment. I'll just, um, you know, that being said, for the the cost perspective, uh, I'd like to make a motion that we recommend the bill favorably.
H.B. 193 Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Withdrew his motion and moved to replace the first substitute with the third substitute.
▶ Watch at 2:30:11Read what they said
Yeah. Why don't I withdraw that motion to make the motion to delete title and body, uh, first substitute house bill 1 93 and replace it with third substitute house bill 1 93.
H.B. 193 Transgender Medical Procedures Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 19, 2026
Moved to pass the third substitute favorably, saying it is better than sub one and protects against costs of experimental procedures, though more work may be needed.
▶ Watch at 2:33:56Read what they said
Thanks. I'll make a motion that we, uh, pass out third substitute House Bill 1 93, and I'll speak to that if that's all right. Okay. Uh, I appreciate the sponsor's work and I actually appreciate the chair's work on this. Um, you know, trying to meet and find a balance, I do think sub three is better than sub one. And so I'm really glad that we, you know, adopted sub three. Sub three may not be perfect yet. Sounds like there may be some concerns. And so, uh, you know, we may have to continue working, but I think, you know, from a policy standpoint is a good way to protect us on the upper end with experimental …
H.B. 56 Vehicle Registration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Presents first substitute H.B. 56, which aims to return part of the registration fees to people who sell or trade in a vehicle mid-year, and asks for questions.
▶ Watch at 49:50Read what they said
Um, first substitute House Bill 56. Vehicle registration Amendments is an attempt to try and restore, uh, two, um, people that register their vehicles and then subsequently sell their vehicle mid-year. Try and give them an opportunity to recapture some of that money that they have, um, uh, that they are trying to for their registration. So for example, you buy a new car in June, trade the old one in the new car, you pay full registration fees for when you pay full registration fees for that you've already paid for the entire year of registration through your other vehicle. So with House Bill 56, we're trying to find a way to return some of that money to people. …
H.B. 56 Vehicle Registration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Answers that the bill does not require a bill of sale, and says adding one could be a friendly amendment.
▶ Watch at 50:51Read what they said
Yes. Okay, go ahead. Uh, the answer to that is no, it doesn't require it. Um, but I think that would be a friendly amendment if we wanted to require it.
H.B. 56 Vehicle Registration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Says a bill of sale might help but depends on implementation, explains that registration currently relies on the sale price recorded on the title, and says he is against tax cheating.
▶ Watch at 51:25Read what they said
Uh, it's, it's possible. It depends on how, uh, it depends on how we have it. Right now, the task commission is not require, does not require at, uh, at registration does not require a bill of sale. They require the signing of the title. Uh, and so, and that value that's on the back of that, um, on the back of that title is what's disclosed to the tax commission as to what the purchase price or the sales price of the, of the vehicle was. And so, you know, absent requiring a bill of sale, a transaction beyond that, in some ways if people are willing to cheat at that registration or on the back of a title, …
H.B. 56 Vehicle Registration Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 30) · Feb 19, 2026
Summarizes that the bill is a good step toward restoring some revenue, notes a fiscal note to be addressed in funding, and moves that the bill be read for a third time.
▶ Watch at 52:25Read what they said
Thank you. I will say that Abraham Lincoln once wisely said, you're not obligated to pay more tax than the government requires you to. So with that, uh, house Bill Fi first substitute house Bill 56 is a good step in that direction. Uh, and it also helps us, uh, move the ball forward at least in restoring some of this revenue. There's obviously a fiscal note to it that we'll have to uh, deal with in the funding process. Uh, but for now I think this is a good bill and for that reason I move that it be read for a third time.
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Moved that the committee pass the bill out favorably.
▶ Watch at 1:56:36Read what they said
You. I'll make a motion that we pass it out, pass out the bill favorably.
H.B. 404 Sex-Designated Housing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 18, 2026
Said he agrees with the bill, comparing the Bostock case to university housing with assigned roommates and suggesting a tenant should be able to exit a lease in such situations.
▶ Watch at 1:57:52Read what they said
I, I'll just, I was going to add, uh, in my, um, I'll just add my comments that I agree. Um, if you, if you look through, you know, the, the case that was quoted, Bostok v Clayton was, uh, consolidated based on an employment rights issue and how employment rights are handled. It's not a housing, uh, as it relates to university housing with a, a lottery where you end up with a forced roommate and no choice to cancel the lease or remove it, uh, or remove yourself from the situation. And really, your only opportunity, your only situation that, uh, uh, if a, a, a person is uncomfortable with the person they've been assigned is, is to …
S.B. 202 Mowing Ordinance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Presents S.B. 202, which would let private golf courses follow the same mowing constraints that municipal golf courses follow, and yields for questions.
▶ Watch at 29:12Read what they said
Thank you. As we discussed yesterday, uh, Senate Bill 2 0 2 is a very simple property rights issue, uh, that allows private golf courses to enjoy the same mowing constraints that municipal golf courses owe, uh, own. And with that, Mr. President, I'm happy to yield for questions.
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Asks the sponsor why the state needs a law school.
▶ Watch at 31:44Read what they said
Um, what is it, uh, that makes, uh, the case in your mind for why we need a law school?
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Follows up by appreciating the supply argument and raising concern that the study is outcome-determinative because it names one university, asking why only UVU was chosen.
▶ Watch at 33:20Read what they said
Um, I appreciate that. Uh, I think this is the first time I've ever heard an argument for more lawyers, so I I really wanted to appreciate, uh, that part of the argument. Um, be careful. You know, the next part, the next question I had for you is we're, we're kind of outcome. We're setting an outcome determinative, uh, study. We're basically telling the studying organization, choose a location and tell us why that works. And I always worry about that from a study standpoint. And so can you tell me why we've narrowed it down to only one university when we have universities in southern Utah, we have universities up in, up in other parts of Northern Utah. …
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Asks how the sponsor would answer the concern about the change in UVU's scope.
▶ Watch at 34:29Read what they said
So how would you, how would you answer this change of scope as it relates to UVU Senator Brad?
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor knew another university already offers night and weekend programs to nearly 10,000 students statewide.
▶ Watch at 37:49Read what they said
Were you aware, uh, were you aware that there is another university that offers night and weekend programs to almost 10,000 students in the state of Utah in 28 of 29 counties already? Senator, Senator Brammer, I believe it's your alma mater.
S.J.R. 8 Joint Resolution to Initiate a Law School at Utah Valley University · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
Argues for a broader feasibility study that does not predetermine the location and asks the sponsor to circle the bill to allow broader changes.
▶ Watch at 38:06Read what they said
Fine institution. But that's, but that, but that highlights careful now. You too. But that, that highlights the point we have. I we've already determined a location and we've said this is where it's going to go. And we've done, we haven't done, I I would argue we are far better off in feasibility studies stepping back and not being prescriptive about where it should be. And instead having a broad study about where we would locate a law school and then doing a, a study in higher ed and have Yui headed up about how we best do it and not have it be outcome determinative. So I'm, I'm, I'm wondering if you'd be willing to circle the bill …
H.B. 64 School and Institutional Trust Lands Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
McCay asks whether the director has criteria for decisions or has sole discretion.
▶ Watch at 1:23:48Read what they said
Okay. Is there any criteria for the director to make a decision or is it solely in the director's purview to make the decision however the director wants to?
H.B. 64 School and Institutional Trust Lands Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
McCay asks where the bill sets standards and a timeline, whether there is an appeals process, and whether the director would be put in a difficult political position.
▶ Watch at 1:24:39Read what they said
I'm try, I was looking for those, I'm looking for those standards in the bill and I was trying to find through 'em, 'cause I remember this being a, a question that we had. Um, my, I think we're looking at lines one 11 shall approve a rejection nomination no later than a hundred. So it has a timeline there. Um, that is there an appeals process? I'm just trying to figure out, we're, we're putting a direct, we're putting the director of SIT a in a sticky legislative situation. Um, and I'm always a little bit hesitant about putting the director of SA into a sticky legislative session or situation. Um, department heads, uh, do well in a, in …
H.B. 64 School and Institutional Trust Lands Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 29) · Feb 18, 2026
McCay says he could not find an appeals process above the director and asks where an appeal would go.
▶ Watch at 1:26:29Read what they said
Yeah, that's what I was trying to thank you. I was trying to find the, uh, the appeals process. It doesn't look like there's an appeal above the director though. It looks like if there's an issue, uh, the director provides them notice on one 17, uh, for, you know, of rejecting and it gives the counties the opportunity to cure. Uh, and then, you know, maintaining a list. I'm just trying to see where is, if there is an appeal, where does that appeal go to? Is it still to the director? Sorry, I'm just curious. Senator
S.B. 149 Licensing Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Asks to make a motion to encircle S.B. 78 and offers to sit down if the chamber is not ready for the motion.
▶ Watch at 39:52Read what they said
Well, I'd like to make a motion to encircle senate bill 78. I did ask for that on the phone, but I'll go down if you're, I'll sit down if you're not ready for that motion.
S.B. 149 Licensing Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Says he is happy to introduce a former seatmate. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 40:08Read what they said
Alright, I'll do it then. We like to, I'm happy to, I'm happy to introduce my former seatmate
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Explains that the motion is to replace Senate Bill 78 with a second substitute.
▶ Watch at 41:30Read what they said
Thank you very much. Um, we do very much what, uh, Senator Weiler, uh, the good Senator, uh, from Bountiful, uh, is doing. We're making a substantive change with Senate Bill 78, um, with a new substitute. And so the plan is to, um, adopt the second substitute. That will be my motion here. Uh, the motion is to delete and title embody Senate bill 78 and replace it with second substitute Senate bill 78. And I'd like to speak to that.
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Describes the substitute's main change, which repeals state-level abatement programs and moves them to the county level, and says he will keep meeting with counties and will recircle the bill.
▶ Watch at 42:03Read what they said
Um, as Senator Weiler, uh, just showed, um, we're gonna take Senate bill 78, it's a vehicle in motion, so to speak. Substitute it with second Senate bills, uh, Senate bill 78. And, uh, the primary substantive changes, uh, is it, you know, repeals the abatement programs at the state level and pushes the abatement programs down to the county level. Um, the counties, uh, after uh, after this sub was released, contact me about making a different substantive change. Uh, and so we're meeting later to do that, but I wanted to adopt the substitute. Uh, and then we will recircle the bill. Uh, I'll meet with the counties and continue this conversation.
S.B. 123 Privacy and Cybersecurity Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Asks for a motion to unencircle one of his bills, which was circled.
▶ Watch at 1:43:34Read what they said
Thank you President, just off the floor for a moment. And, uh, one of my bills got cycle, uh, circled. I'm wondering if I could get, um, motion to Uncer Senate bill 2 0 2.
S.B. 202 Mowing Ordinance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Presents Senate Bill 202, saying it responds to a constituent's concern about golf course mowing hours and would create a uniform statewide standard, then yields to questions.
▶ Watch at 1:43:56Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. Senate Bill 2 0 2 is a constituent bill that brought, uh, came to me a couple of years ago, actually, uh, last year it died on the house, uh, board. And, uh, here it is, uh, trying to get it done when it died, uh, it just ran outta time. So, uh, needless to say, try to get it done earlier in the session. And it's still this far into the session. Here we are. Um, with that, it's a very simple bill. Um, we, we currently, uh, have different standards, uh, across the state. When municipal governments own golf courses, uh, or counties own the golf courses, there's not mowing restrictions. But when the, …
S.B. 202 Mowing Ordinance Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 28) · Feb 17, 2026
Moves that Senate Bill 202 be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 1:46:10Read what they said
Thank you President. I'll move that Senate Bill 2 0 2, be read for a third time.
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Says the second substitute has been available for about a week and it is time to move the bill.
▶ Watch at 23:56Read what they said
Uh, now it's, uh, ready to run. Just give everybody a chance to look at that second substitute that was on there. It's been there for almost a week, uh, time to get it moving.
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Explains that SB 77 corrects bridge teacher qualifications, helps universities collaborate to find teachers, adds proficiency assessments for grades 10 through 12, and directs the State Board of Education to report by October on funding for grades 3 through 12 language assessments.
▶ Watch at 24:04Read what they said
In 2016, the Utah legislature legislature created the bridge program, uh, that for accelerated foreign language, uh, to help expand the DLI programs into high schools. The Bridge program enables students who pass the AP language test to enroll in the 3000 level upper division university concurrent enrollment courses in high school, on high school campuses. Um, at $15 a credit, these students save thousands in college tuition, uh, that can easily do a double major Senate bill. 77 makes some correction to bridge teacher qualifications, uh, helps universities work more collaboratively together to, to find qualified teachers for our students. SB 77 also adds proficiency assessment for grades 10 through 12 provide complete proficiency assessment review. Um, last but …
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Says he will waive some remarks and finish, and is open for questions.
▶ Watch at 25:21Read what they said
For that Mr. President, I'll, uh, waive some. I'll waive, I'll finish, uh, speaking Open for questions. There you go. I'm open for questions.
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 25) · Feb 13, 2026
Waives summation and moves that second substitute SB 77 pass.
▶ Watch at 25:40Read what they said
Thank you. I'll waive summation. Move that second substitute Senate bill 77 dual language immersion amendments pass.
S.B. 273 License Plate Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Presents SB 273, describing changes to special group plates, replacement of faded plates, rotation of standard plate designs, and adding the driver license to the design review board's duties.
▶ Watch at 46:50Read what they said
What's that? Oh, just apparently I'm not in great shape. Who knew? So, hang on. All right. Okay. Uh, there is a lot in this bill, bless its heart. Uh, I'm gonna learn my lesson this year and next time break it up into lots of different subject matters because it's easier to vote. One of them 1 0 1, I've always tried to make them smaller, but Senate Bill 1 73, uh, is a culmination of, or 2 73 is, is the culmination of trying to work on different ways of doing license plates. Um, a couple years ago, we changed the process to make it so that, um, uh, you know, to remove the front license plate, uh, …
S.B. 273 License Plate Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Responds that the bill lowers the special group plate threshold from 500 to 250 and that plates below it are removed automatically.
▶ Watch at 57:11Read what they said
Well, um, that's a great question. Yes. We have an automatic removal for those that do not maintain the 500 threshold. Currently in this bill, we're taking that threshold down to 250.
S.B. 273 License Plate Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Explains that plates under 250 would carry an added $5 fee paid by the special group plate holder to keep the plate active.
▶ Watch at 57:47Read what they said
So in this bill, what will happen, so the 200 Will clear them. What will happen is let me, lemme tell you what the bill says and let's, I'm happy to take feedback and come up with a different idea. Um, the bill says this will do 250 is the minimum now, and if you're under 250, there will be a nominal fee, I think it's $5 that will be charged to the special group plate holder. And that $5 will pay for the administration and upkeep of the plate, uh, to be active in the system. It's Still $5 in Addition, in addition to the $20 that, that is already in statutory minimum, Somebody would pay that. Yeah. So …
S.B. 273 License Plate Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Agrees to look at a donation approach and says the bill would keep such plates from going away.
▶ Watch at 59:52Read what they said
I'm, so, I will do what I have to do. And I think that's fine. Um, you and I can look at that. What I, what I'd suggest is in the bill right now, we will prevent it from going away because everybody who has a plate will be, you know, contributing that donation. Uh, and we'll protect it. But certainly let's talk online. 'cause maybe there's an alternative we can find.
S.B. 273 License Plate Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Explains that the design review committee would pick two standard plates each year and that the tax commission says the system can be programmed for it.
▶ Watch at 1:00:39Read what they said
Every year in, I think September, October, I think is what the bill calls for, is in the fourth quarter sometime the design review committee will decide which two plates are the standard plates for the following year. That gets programmed into the system. By January one, people start ordering which of the standard plates and which ones they're paying the 20 bucks. For, for a new, for a plate that's out of cycle. The only Problem is you've got the cost of replacing the plate. Um, in which situation, I Apologize. So you're No, that's not right. 'cause they will, they will be issued, the other plates will stay plates. Yep. That's right. Right. Yeah. Okay.
S.B. 273 License Plate Amendments · Senate Transportation, Public Utilities, Energy, and Technology Committee · Feb 12, 2026
In summation, raises an idea for the state to auction low-number plates and notes that the bill's fiscal note funding is still being worked out.
▶ Watch at 1:02:03Read what they said
Thank you. Um, the, I want to just add one more thing, uh, that is, I can't remember if it's in this yet or if it's going to be coming soon. So I'll just add that as a, as a placeholder. Um, if you'll, if you want to Google, uh, or, you know, look up on the internet, uh, have fun with it. Look up, uh, low number plate auctions. And you'll see for one example, the state of Delaware, uh, they have a plate, uh, that sold. It was a low number, uh, bill or a low number plate, and it sold for $675,000 that the state was, you know, they did an auction for low number plates. Now …
H.B. 258 Insurance Coverage Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
McCay moves to favorably recommend HB 258 first substitute and says allowing an individual to reverse a covered choice is a fair policy.
▶ Watch at 1:22:17Read what they said
Thanks. I'll make a motion that we pass out House Bill 2 58, first substitute. Okay. The motion force is to favorably recommend House Bill 2 58, first substitute. Would you like to speak to that? Yeah, I think, you know, if, if a health system chooses to cover one way on this situation, uh, you know, in this, uh, medical, uh, world, then I think it's turnabout is also, you know, healthy to give a person the option to go the other way. And I feel like in that scenario, we're kind of acknowledging the choice of the individual in this process. And I feel like making that choice is something that is, uh, is clearly, you know, possible. …
S.B. 258 Infant at Work Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 12, 2026
Asked whether the program is permanent or a pilot and suggested adding a sunset review, saying he could support the bill with one.
▶ Watch at 1:38:11Read what they said
Yeah, thanks. I just, you know, I'm, I was just reading through it again and I couldn't tell are we making this permanent? Are we keeping it a pilot? We're making it permanent, optional, but permanent. Would you consider adding a Sunset review so that we can review this policy? Again, when it comes around just with COVID, those kinds of things, it feels like, you know, there's some interruption of the data collection right on, on its efficacy. What I learned from a policy I implemented shortly after COVID was the data didn't actually support what I was trying to do and we had to repeal it last year. And so I just would say instead of putting this …
S.B. 229 State Employee Benefits Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Feb 11, 2026
Says he is torn on the bill because of the fiscal note and the balance of issues, and will vote yes while noting open issues remain. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:07:25Read what they said
I'm, uh, I'm torn, uh, for the same reasons. Uh, I want to vote. I want to vote yes because of the fiscal note. I want to vote no because of the, the torn, you know, or because of the, you know, trying to find a balance in that issue. Uh, and I also don't necessarily wanna send a message that it's a consensus. Uh, you know, that this was an easy policy, but I think the goods outweigh the bad. So at the same point, I'm gonna, I'm gonna vote yes, but recognize that there are sounds like still options and still things to work out and work out.
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 23) · Feb 11, 2026
Sen. McCay says S.B. 77 would allow concurrent enrollment to help dual language immersion students, citing parent and student interest and improved outcomes, and yields to questions.
▶ Watch at 27:21Read what they said
Thank you President. Uh, again, Senate Bill 77 is an effort to try and help with, uh, add concurrent enrollment possibilities for, um, uh, for our DLI programs. What we've seen with our, uh, dual language immersion is they're largely, they're very popular with parents and with students. Uh, we've seen, uh, tremendous outcomes as a result, improved outcomes for students in, in similar socioeconomic status, uh, as a result of participation in the DLI programs. And this is just an opportunity to, uh, allow for concurrent enrollment, uh, at the dl, uh, to help build bridge and, and gaps in our DLI program and help these, uh, high school students that are in DLI still be able to achieve, …
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 23) · Feb 11, 2026
Sen. McCay moves that the second substitute of S.B. 77 pass.
▶ Watch at 28:34Read what they said
Thank you. I'll make a motion that second substitute Senate bill 77 dual language immersion amendments pass.
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Opens by presenting Senate Bill 60, which would reduce the income tax rate.
▶ Watch at 10:16Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. We debated this bill yesterday. I'm happy to open, uh, just for as a reminder, this is, uh, an effort to, uh, cut the income tax again, again, again, again, again And again And again. Sorry.
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Opposes the substitute, arguing that high-income tax policies in California have driven wealthy residents out of the state.
▶ Watch at 11:58Read what they said
Well, I can understand the desire to, uh, to do this. We have maintained, this is just a different tax policy. Um, this is working out, uh, miserably for the state of California that tax the rich movement, uh, where those who are wealthy are leaving the state in, uh, in, in successive order. Uh, it, it seems, uh, the senator's effort is to try and get people to leave Utah. So for that purpose, I would say that this is not a friendly substitution.
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says he has made his presentation and asks whether there are other questions.
▶ Watch at 14:18Read what they said
Yeah, thank you. Um, are there any other, I, I think we're questions. I don't see any other, I made Presentation.
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says the district figures are overstated, cites record income tax revenue and Utah's economic growth, and argues a lower rate keeps Utah competitive.
▶ Watch at 15:07Read what they said
So I hope you'll realize what a trick that is. Okay. And I'll just offer this as, as a trick. The school district folks that are talking to you are telling you that they need to raise your taxes $680 million to offset a 40 million a a $40. Sorry. They need, they need to raise property taxes $600 per household to make up for a $45 income tax cut at the state. I am not a mathematician, but I will tell you the alligator eachs one of those numbers, and it isn't 45. And in my experience, this is what happens with this debate is folks want to try and scare us as this is not, you know, good …
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Urges passage, saying Utah has a budget surplus and that a tax cut returns money to families, and argues that mandatory taxes are not the way to ask high earners to support schools.
▶ Watch at 21:39Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you. Yeah, I appreciate the lively debate and conversation about this. Um, I would love to have this funded over all the education, uh, initiatives outside of dealing with our, our growth and teacher salary, et cetera. But that's not up for debate. Let's just talk about where we are in Utah for just a moment. We are, we have a budget surplus this year. Uh, it's not a big one, but it's a budget surplus. And I mentioned all the ways we're number one. And I, I know president, if I turn the microphone over to him, he could list the 12 to 15 different ways that we're number one. 'cause he hasn't memorized and lives by …
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Asks the Senate to move S.B. 78 from second to third reading, says a substitute is being prepared that will make substantial changes, says he will circle the bill tomorrow, and waives his presentation.
▶ Watch at 37:01Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. Uh, this is just second to third, uh, on first substitute Senate Bill one or SE Senate bill 78. We are working on a sub for this bill and it will make substantial changes that I think, uh, will please, uh, 80% of the constituency. Um, but in the meantime, I'm just gonna ask the body if we can move it from second to third. Uh, we'll even spare the debate, move it from second to third. I will circle it tomorrow while we're working on the sub. I have a meeting with the counties and with the cities on Thursday, uh, to hammer out some details. So, uh, I'll just add, I'll just make this …
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says everyone knows the substitute is coming and there will be time to review it, and moves the first substitute for S.B. 78 to third reading.
▶ Watch at 38:16Read what they said
Uh, with that caveat that everybody knows the sub's coming and there will be plenty of time for everybody to review it. Um, I'm going to move this first substitute Senate bill 78. Be read for a third time.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Presents S.B. 97, which covers local reserve limits, residential exemptions, new growth definitions, and interest on reserve accounts, and says the bill will be refined with counties and cities.
▶ Watch at 45:00Read what they said
Senator McKay. Thank you President. Thank you President, uh, Senate Bill 97, uh, is a tax cleanup bill that deals with several issues that, uh, we're dealing with. There are several primary policies in here, happy to debate their merit, uh, and, you know, welcome, you know, conversations off the floor if there's issues. Um, what we've seen in a study that was done by the treasurer just this last year, uh, was the, uh, the accumulation at our local subdivisions around the state. Um, we've got accumulation of reserve accounts, um, and we're trying to find ways to, uh, you know, minimize that accumulation. 'cause every dollar in a government's hands is not dollar in the economy or, you …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says the limit is 125% of the budget, down from 135%, allowing one year of prior property tax revenue plus a buffer.
▶ Watch at 50:29Read what they said
That's a great question. Actually. It will, it's 125%. So right now they're allowed to save one year of the prior year's property tax revenue in code. And this amount that we created is a buffer that allows them to capture above that one year's rate, that one year. So basically, it's akin to right now they're allowed 135% of their budget. Now we're taking it down to 125% of their budget.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Explains that school districts must set rates to meet minimum school program requirements every two years, and that this interacts with the cap.
▶ Watch at 51:21Read what they said
Yep, thank you. Okay. The line 6 74 to 6 79 deals with the cap that we talked about, where 5%, they can't increase taxes more than 5%. What we have is the minimum school program and the minimum school program, uh, and a school district is required to charge a certain amount of tax to qualify for the minimum school program. And what that does is it, it trues them up and may make sure that they're not just relying on the minimum school program its funds. Instead they're relying on local effort and the minimum school program. Does that make sense? Now, what we did last year was we required, uh, these taxing entities, so the school district …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says homes rented longer than 60 days would be treated as businesses and lose the exemption, that the bill is considering phasing options, and that only owners on title would qualify.
▶ Watch at 53:33Read what they said
Thank you President. Um, I know this will surprise everyone, but we have a lot of second tax, second home tax sheets. And by that I mean people that own a second home, but clean a primary residence in multiple jurisdictions, right? They, uh, you know, Washington County deals with this a lot, um, but there are places, you know, outside cabins in rural Utah, whatever that struggle to try and, and balance this as well. One of the, so they do this for tax purposes. If a home is rented for less than 60 days, so Airbnb or that kind of thing, it already qualifies as being a business and as a result is part of the, um, business …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Argues school districts should use property tax for ongoing operations and salaries rather than saving for capital projects, and that saving creates the wrong incentive.
▶ Watch at 59:32Read what they said
Okay. Um, I'm actually a little bit surprised by your question about this, knowing where you come from. Uh, instead of saving up for capital projects, I would argue that the school districts ought to be using this money for ongoing operation maintenance salaries and wages and not for capital projects. And what I'd argue is that this savings program that we've created for entities is actually deleterious to the benefits that can be provided to employees. It wasn't me. Um, it, it's, it's not helpful to the employees efforts or their desire to try and increase or improve, uh, you know, salary and wages. So instead, they're saving up for capital projects instead of providing it for salary wages. …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says he is not yet familiar with the Mountain View issue and is willing to meet to help address new growth concerns.
▶ Watch at 1:03:48Read what they said
Thank you. You know, uh, that's a great question. Um, I'm not familiar with the bill yet of whether, so I, I don't know the specific issue, but I'm more than happy to sit down and see if I can help fix it. I mean, I understand, I understand new growth is an issue and we're, you know, we're trying to get the definition right and including more voices in that conversation is definitely gonna make it better. So I'm, I'm happy to talk.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Says he owns rental properties, that rental markets are saturated, and that landlords would likely bear the added tax rather than renters.
▶ Watch at 1:05:11Read what they said
Thank you. I'm just glad it's not a substitute. Uh, so let me, let me, let me see if I can, uh, answer that a little bit. Um, I, I'll just tell you anecdotally, as an owner of rental properties, right. This directly impacts me. I don't need to declare a conflict, I just own rental properties. And as a result, this will directly negatively impact me. So, one, two, uh, you know, over the last 10 years, we've had record growth in rents in this state because we've seen record appreciation. And so landlords have done very well during the last 10 years. As far as rental values, I will tell you anecdotally, I know that the, the right …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Summarizes the debate and says he will bring back changes on the cap, the incentive to raise taxes, reserve sizing, and new growth, working with the treasurer and analysts.
▶ Watch at 1:07:48Read what they said
Thank you. I have, uh, I appreciate the debate one. Anytime you guys will sit down and talk tax with me, I feel very happy. Unfortunately, I have to have a bill for you guys to mostly wanna do it. Uh, so I appreciate, uh, appreciate you doing that with me today. Um, it's nice to have a captive audience and be nerdy about tax for a little bit. Um, what, what I'll, what I'll ask is, I know there's several prongs of this policy, and as we've highlighted, there are concerns about some of them. What I will ask is, bodies help like we did on 78. I'll me move it over and then I will come back and …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 22) · Feb 10, 2026
Moves that the first substitute of S.B. 97 be read for a third time.
▶ Watch at 1:10:58Read what they said
With that, Mr. President, I move that first set Senate first substitute Senate bill 97. Um, move, be read for a third time.
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Presents S.B. 77 as codifying dual language immersion requirements, including a qualified-teacher requirement, proficiency requirements, a partnership option for local education agencies, and university teaching of certain upper-level concurrent enrollment courses, and yields to questions.
▶ Watch at 20:42Read what they said
but, uh, this basically, uh, codifies our requirements and our needs to fit the, uh, dual language immersion commitments throughout the state. I've heard from a lot of higher ed and I've heard from a lot of educators who appreciate and support this bill. Um, it does require a qualified teacher to teach in each, uh, in each of these organizations. And it does have, uh, does have proficiency requirements related to the dual language immersion program. It also allows a local, uh, education, uh, uh, and LEA to partner with certain institutions to help bridge that gap. Um, and then, uh, it also requires universities to teach certain upper level concurrent enrollment courses. For the purpose of meeting this …
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Moves that the first substitute of S.B. 77 be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 21:36Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. I'll move the first substitute Senate bill 77 dual language immersion amendments. Be read for a third time.
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Introduces S.B. 167 as a fix to a timeline loophole in the reintegration program and says he has an amendment to move.
▶ Watch at 38:18Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President. Senate Bill 1 67 is, uh, a bill that, uh, caught a loophole in reintegration program. Um, what we had was a time limit as part of the reintegration program that allowed for students to enroll in school before their safety or security could be identified or verified by a local LEA. So the purpose of Senate Bill 1 67 is to change that timeline and make it so that it is less, and I need to double check present 'cause I think I have an amendment that is online. Um, I'm just checking one second. Sorry. I do have amendment three that I wanted to move. Um, if it's okay, president, I'd like to move …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Explains that amendment three replaces duplicate notice requirements with a single unified notice process.
▶ Watch at 39:12Read what they said
Yes. Thank you. The purpose of amendment three is to change, uh, or is to trade out duplicity, uh, or duplication of notice requirements so that when a, uh, so that when a student, uh, so the courts will notify that a minor has been taken into temporary custody and not notify the school official within five days after the day on which the minor is it says released from currently and now it's taken into, which then notifies the school prior to an absence being charged or any of those other issues. So now with this amendment, we'll move that there and another part of the code requires notice after they're released. And instead of requiring a second notice …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Waives the rest of his presentation and opens the floor for questions.
▶ Watch at 40:14Read what they said
Thank you President. I'm happy to waive the rest of presentation and, and I'm open for questions if there are already.
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Moves that S.B. 167 as amended be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 40:22Read what they said
Thank you President. I'll move that. Uh, Senate bill 1 67 reintegration for dis discipline students as amended. Be read for a third time.
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Presents SB 60 as a simple income tax rate reduction of 0.05 and says further cuts will depend on budget negotiations.
▶ Watch at 59:46Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President Senate Bill 60 is a very simple bill, uh, has obviously ramifications. We've, uh, I'm trying to make the president happy so we can go again, again, again, again, again, be careful We don't impugn. But, uh, the purpose of the bill is that it, as it stated now, is just an income tax rate reduction right now it's a 0.05, uh, rate reduction. And that that will, uh, you know, the hope is get a second, move it to third, move it over to the house. And obviously as we continue through the budget negotiations, we will finalize whether or not we can, we can pull off an income tax cut. Um, and, uh, and, …
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 21) · Feb 9, 2026
Gives closing remarks favoring continued reductions in the income tax and moves that SB 60 be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 1:05:16Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you, president. I appreciate the debate on this. I know that, uh, uh, what I'm excited is that, uh, the representative from salt, or the senator from Salt Lake County should be really excited about the next bill, which, you know, creates flexibility in the income tax fund so that it could pay for the services of the senior couple that she's concerned about in her district. So she should really like Senate Bill 65. My gut says she may not Stay, stay careful Hypothetically. So what I, I just looked at Senate Bill 60 as an opportunity. Um, you know, if you, if you looked at inflation, we have had, um, you know, as a state we've …
S.B. 218 Constable Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Says he wants to comment on the motion and asks to explain his vote after public comment.
▶ Watch at 1:10:09Read what they said
Either way. I'll just tell 'em, I'll just real quick, I was just gonna make a comment to the motion, but public comment said that You can explain your vote.
S.B. 218 Constable Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Explains his aye vote, saying state law and the Utah Constitution treat cities and counties as subdivisions of the state with powers delegated by the state, and that he is still considering the policy.
▶ Watch at 1:10:19Read what they said
I'm voting. Aye but, uh, you know, article, uh, I'm trying to remember if it's Title 10, chapter one. Uh, go look at section. I'm not sure 3 0 3 or wherever the definitions are on that section. Cities, counties are all defined as subdivisions of the state. That is the title and a unfortunately, the last public comment started off with a false premise. Um, I'd go even further and say that the Utah Constitution, uh, article 11, 10 or 11, article 11, I think is right. Uh, also makes it clear that the powers of the cities, the counties, the states, every, everything is a delegation of power from the state. And so this may, you know, I'm …
S.B. 177 Product Pricing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks whether the witness objects to the bill's policy of preventing higher prices based on demand or need.
▶ Watch at 1:43:31Read what they said
So, do you have a problem with the po with the policy of the bill though, where she, it seems like she's trying to prevent price gouging, uh, you know, based on affluence or, you know, whatever, uh, you know, or demand, you know, uh, the idea of, I don't know, you're in need of something and as a result we're gonna raise the price on it, you know, what are your thoughts on that?
S.B. 177 Product Pricing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Says the witness's group seems not to favor higher tiered pricing and wants to avoid banning discounts.
▶ Watch at 1:44:47Read what they said
Yeah, that's the, I'm trying to find, it doesn't sound like your group is in favor of the higher tiered pricing and trying to find that balance to make sure we don't outlaw discounts.
S.B. 177 Product Pricing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks how certain the witness is that consumers do not want discounts limited.
▶ Watch at 1:45:21Read what they said
Again, I just, how Cer how certain are you that they don't want discounts or they don't want us to ban discounts?
S.B. 177 Product Pricing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Suggests the sponsor could amend the bill to state that it does not limit discounting, and asks whether the witness would be okay with that.
▶ Watch at 1:46:18Read what they said
So she could, the sponsor could just change the bill and say, nothing about this bill is intended to limit discounting or anything off of, you know, MSRP or those kinds of things. And you guys would be okay with it, it sounds like. 'cause the rest of it wouldn't apply. Yeah.
S.B. 182 Attorney Admission to Jail Facilities Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Sen. McCay moved to favorably recommend the bill as amended, with a request that the sponsor identify the county involved.
▶ Watch at 2:02:10Read what they said
I'll make a motion that we pass the bail out favorably as long as the sponsor will identify which county it was. I'll leave that up to her discretion and summation.
S.B. 210 Nicotine Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asks whether fees should match program costs and whether raising the cartridge charge from $30 to $250 would increase program costs.
▶ Watch at 2:13:09Read what they said
M might it make sense for me to have one of the law enforcement folks join where the enforcement folks join me to able to where answer some of these we'll here first And then we, we can do that if we need to. Okay. Similar to, uh, Senator Weiler, um, usually we try to keep fees close to what it costs to regulate the program and manage the program. Mm-hmm. I'm trying to figure out is, is 250 mean that the program is going to be costing more to go from 30 to 250? Is that
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asked how many minimum clinical nursing hours current code requires before becoming an APRN.
▶ Watch at 2:36:41Read what they said
Here's, uh, okay, I'm trying, so I I the nursing, uh, question we talked about earlier. I'm just trying to figure out, you know, currently in the code, how many, how many minimal, minimal minimum hours of clinical nursing experience do they need? Uh, you know, before they become an A PRN?
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Questioned the rationale for Utah's hour requirements compared with other states and why entry to practice is being delayed.
▶ Watch at 2:37:10Read what they said
Yeah. So that's why I'm, I am, I struggle with these things where we, 'cause the phy, the physician's assistant actually highlights this problem actually better than the nursing problem in my opinion. But Wyoming zero, North Dakota, 4,000, South Dakota, 6,000, Montana, New Hampshire, are we just like, is our goal to be just slightly worse than everybody else, or slightly more than everybody else? I'm just trying to figure out the rational basis behind why we're drawing lines at entry to practice in a world where like, hands-on participation, you know, you've got AI and, and other, you know, folks talking about how the medical profession itself is going to be irrelevant in the next 10 years. You …
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Said both, asking why Utah's PA hours are higher than other states.
▶ Watch at 2:38:21Read what they said
Both. Okay. 'cause the pa the PA we're looking at, you know, taking it from 10,000 8,500, which is lovely, but I'm looking at those other states and I'm thinking, well, why are we more than them?
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Argued the licensure office should avoid gatekeeping, said the numbers seem driven by stakeholders like the medical association, and asked why 2,000 hours when the wheel shows 500 to 700.
▶ Watch at 2:40:55Read what they said
Who wants these numbers higher? I mean, my understanding is this is, this is just me. LERs responsibility is how, how do we prevent the state from being a gatekeeper to entry to profession, right? How do we make sure it's competency-based? How do we make sure that it's evidence-based to reach these requirements? And my problem with the way LER has approached this is it sure feels like a dart board at the moment where they've got quote stakeholders, uh, that are trying to drive the numbers higher. And I get it. There's always the medical association who really, really, really wants to prevent encroachment in their practice area. The only one, you know, I mean, we could have …
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Said the 2,000 hours still exceed the wheel, that nurses and PAs seemed disadvantaged in negotiations, that he has seen no evidence supporting the hours, and that he cannot support the bill as is.
▶ Watch at 2:42:11Read what they said
So, but then even then, our 2000 is still exceeding this. It feels like, I, I'll say this, it feels like the nurses and the PAs are lesser constituents in this negotiation of stakeholders with ler. And I'll just tell you, it's very disappointing for me as a lawmaker looking over LERs shoulder. This isn't why they were created. They were created to streamline, to make things better, to make things evidence-based, and to focus on specific numbers that are competency and core based. That's a professional licensing program, right? This is my goodness. It just feels like we should have more hours for these people. And while I, I appreciate what LERs saying that isn't very persuasive. Like I, …
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asked who the American Medical Association is, regarding the source of the hours wheel.
▶ Watch at 2:46:43Read what they said
Yeah. Um, so as I, as I look through the wheel, so let me just ask, the wheel comes from the American Medical Medical Association. Is that doctors? Is that, is that, who is that? I apologize.
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Noted that doctors produced a tool that limits practice of potential competitors.
▶ Watch at 2:47:00Read what they said
So doctors think it'd be a great idea to limit the practice of people who might competitive, be competitive with them. And this wheel is an interesting tool that I can see that they, they like. Um, but
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Joked about the debt and the bar exam for lawyers. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:47:17Read what they said
And, and the debt they get to pay for, it's probably miserable. That just shows you how much society values lawyers. Literally, they haze us with an exam and then they say Good luck.
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asked why PA hours could not be lower, citing long waits for primary care and asking why the state would make care less accessible and more expensive.
▶ Watch at 2:47:40Read what they said
Okay. But I look at, I go back to the PAs, why, why can't we be 6,000 or, you know, like between Montana and, and I'm just looking right now, if I call a doctor, you know, my primary care physician, I'm at least 45 days out for an appointment. I've gotta schedule before I leave. And we're like hurting to get people into services in a lot of places. So I'm, so, I, I'm just trying to figure out the rationale of making it harder to do that, that that's, uh, legitimately I'm wrestling with. I know you're, you're picking your opinion. And, and, and that's fine. I'm just on the other side of it saying, why are we …
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asked Shumway how the requirement affects only 1% when all new nurse practitioners must meet the 2,000 hours.
▶ Watch at 2:54:06Read what they said
You said it's only gonna affect 1%, but all, uh, all uh, nurse practitioners have to comply with the, and all new entrants into the field have to comply, right? With The 2000 hours? With the 2000 hours? That's correct. So The one, so that number 1% sounds like 1% of current practicing, or 1% of, 'cause what I understand from Senator Vickers presentation is we got to 1,250 between the schooling that they had, you know, to get to that point. And then there was, we're requiring additional, what is that? Uh, seven 50. So we're adding another 750 hours. And our purpose for adding another seven 50 hours is for everyone. It is not just for those that …
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asked how the figure is 1% when it affects everyone.
▶ Watch at 2:54:56Read what they said
Go, Go ahead. I'm just trying to figure out how you get to 1% when it affects a hundred percent. Yeah.
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Restated the point and asked about the survey's participation rate.
▶ Watch at 2:55:19Read what they said
Okay. So it applies to all, we think only 1% would actually hit that wouldn't be able to hit that 2000 hours naturally. And how many did, was there a hundred percent participation or was this
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asked for scientific evidence that the required hours improve care, cost, or accessibility.
▶ Watch at 3:05:50Read what they said
Thanks. Um, will you stay there for a second, Michelle? Oh, oh, sorry. Go. Yeah, I'm, I'm looking for, I'm looking for the science, right? Mm-hmm. I have doctors, you, everybody else yelling at me and telling me how important in 2020 through 2022, where is it to follow the science Uhhuh? Where's the science? I, I don't see the science. That's all I'm asking for. Prove to me how this improves care, how it makes medical care more expensive or less expensive. And prove to me that it makes it more accessible. That's all I'm asking. I know your negotiated point would probably have the hours closer to 20,000 for both, but let's just look on the other side. …
S.B. 31 Office of Professional Licensure Review Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Feb 6, 2026
Asked her to bring the information to him.
▶ Watch at 3:06:46Read what they said
Much of this does not sound super encouraging. Well, but I'll wait for it. It sounds great. Okay. Bring it to me. That'd be great. Thanks.
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 18) · Feb 6, 2026
Presents the bill, which renames the committee to the General Government Oversight Committee, limits school board rule suspensions to 60 days, extends 60-day suspension power to other agency rules, adds members to help reach quorum, allows closed hearings for sensitive matters, and moves Senate Amendment 2 to change audit ordering to priority consideration.
▶ Watch at 40:40Read what they said
Sorry. Alright. Um, we, this is a, uh, extension of evolution in the, uh, administrative Rules Committee. The primary focus of the bill, uh, is trying to add a little bit of, um, strength to the committee. And at the same time, uh, give some bounds for, uh, in previous provisions that were adopted. The first thing, the reason why the bill is so long is because we're changing the name from Rules Review and General Government Oversight, which is a mouthful if you're trying to say it frequently. Uh, and we're changing it to just the General Government Oversight Committee. It will still have purview over administrative rules. It will still have, uh, you know, those requirements to review. …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 18) · Feb 6, 2026
Offers to answer later questions and moves that the amended first substitute bill be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 46:04Read what they said
If any questions come up, I'm happy to take any questions, uh, that come up, um, as you know, as you're reviewing the bill, if you have a, a chance. Um, but with that, I'll move the first substitute Senate bill 1 48 General Government oversight amendments as amended. Be read for a third time.
H.B. 65 Construction Code Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 18) · Feb 6, 2026
Discusses H.B. 77 tax provisions, including making the SALT workaround permanent instead of letting it sunset, and says the state is not decoupling from federal tax treatment, which the fiscal analysis indicates would slightly increase state revenue.
▶ Watch at 46:51Read what they said
Thank you. Now you see why you don't say the D word about tax. Right? Decouple freaks everyone out. Remember that? Because there are proposals to decouple for other issues. I won't be in favor of them then either. So, house bill 77 Getting back to, uh, our nerdy tax conversation. Uh, and I'm much more commentary on me than anything else. But if you'll remember back when we, uh, back when the Trump tax cut in Jobs Act passed, uh, back in, uh, let's see, 20, I wanna say it was 2016. The deadline for, uh, that bill was, uh, it was set to Sunset in on December 31st, 2025. And so we set our Sunset for the stat …
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Asks whether the purpose of the disclosure is to identify who sponsors negative campaign signs rather than leaving them anonymous.
▶ Watch at 43:09Read what they said
Thank you. Sponsor. You do a question. I think he's already yielded, so I'll, I'll ask the question and if he doesn't wanna yield, he can tell me to go where it's warm. Um, is the purpose of this disclosure, like adding this, uh, this disclosure and making easily readable, is all of that to deal with if somebody puts up a, a campaign sign against somebody so that we know who the organization is that is, is making the negative statement about something or about a policy instead of it being an anonymous effort? Is that the question?
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Asks what would happen to a hypothetical opposition sign with no disclosure of who paid for it.
▶ Watch at 45:10Read what they said
But, um, but, you know, if someone were to put anyone but Senator Brammer and on the back of the sign it's, it didn't have a name or anything else on it, what would then happen If it did not have, Yeah. Who paid for it? Thank you, Mr. President Pro tem. Go ahead.
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Asks whether the sponsor would consider an amendment presuming that a candidate sign was paid for by the candidate, while requiring disclosure on signs opposing a candidate or other messages.
▶ Watch at 46:05Read what they said
Thanks. I wonder if the sponsor would, uh, would consider, uh, an amendment, um, for when we consider this on third, that has a presumption that a, a sign that is in favor of a candidate is, is, uh, is for, you know, a candidate or an issue, but a sign that is against a candidate or, you know, or an issue or whatever it may be, you know, where you might not know who's, who's paying for that sign. I'm wondering if there's not a, a presumption, at least for candidate sign, what I'd hate to see is somebody going around and they've done a bunch of work to get people's signs out. And, you know, if you put …
H.B. 33 Political Signs Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
Says the answer addresses his question and that identifying anonymous groups matters more than adding stickers to signs already clearly marked.
▶ Watch at 48:38Read what they said
Yeah. Okay. That, that answered my question. Just the idea of going back and adding a bunch of stickers and that kind of stuff to signs that are obvious who paid for them seemed less, uh, valuable than, you know, trying to figure out if anonymous groups go out there and, you know, participate in political speech and you don't know who they are. I think that'd probably be harder. So thanks.
H.B. 73 Public Employee Retaliatory Action Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 16) · Feb 4, 2026
McCay says an amendment on employee-related language will be offered on third reading and moves that H.B. 73 be read a third time.
▶ Watch at 58:35Read what they said
I'll, um, uh, I I'll just highlight, uh, tomorrow, uh, uh, when we deal with this on third, there's an amendment that's being, uh, being drafted, uh, that puts some additional consideration in here for, uh, for dealing with employees, um, that, that is cleaning up an issue that, uh, we didn't draft as carefully as we could have last year. So that will be an amendment probably in the bill tomorrow. Um, but for that purpose, I'll, I'll make the motion that we move, uh, that we read House Bill 73 for a third time. And the question is, shall house bill 73 be read for a third time? Roll call vote.
S.B. 110 Marriage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Asks the sponsor how the bill would affect intestacy rules when an unmarried cohabiting partner dies without a will.
▶ Watch at 1:04:07Read what they said
Thank you, Mr. President Poam. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Of course You yield. Yes, he will. Go Ahead. Thank you. Um, how will this, how will this impact intestacy for, uh, for cohabitating couples when one spouse passes away and, uh, you know, if it, if they leave no errors or if the, you know, the individual has no errors, uh, and the tube are cohabitating, how will this impact intestacy in that situation?
S.B. 110 Marriage Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 15) · Feb 3, 2026
Says he is weighing the intestacy effects, noting that few people create wills, and asks the sponsor to consider how the bill may affect intestacy later on.
▶ Watch at 1:05:34Read what they said
I appreciate that, that that was, uh, you know, in that situation, I think by the rules of intestacy then the individual passing, if, uh, you know, that the state would then receive a portion would receive that, uh, individual's a state as opposed to an argument being able to be made about a joint claim on, uh, on, you know, on those assets. I guess that's what I'm trying to, that's what I'm trying to weigh. And it was recently, uh, you know, I was in A CLE and I remember, uh, a point being made that less than 40% of the population, uh, actually creates a will. And so, um, while common sense would be to create a …
H.J.R. 1 Joint Rules Resolution - Amendments to Joint Rules · Senate Rules Committee · Jan 30, 2026
Raises concern that workload bills wait for infrequent committee meetings and are placed at the end of the calendar unlike fiscal note bills, and asks for changes to the second substitute to set a deadline and earlier placement.
▶ Watch at 7:06Read what they said
Yep. Speaking to the motion, um, in here you've got a definition of workload. Um, my, uh, concern about workload, um, not necessarily this definition. My concern about workload is the infrequency of the committee's meeting. Uh, and then once it meets, it meets towards the end of the session. So if a bill that had a legislative workload was passed in the first week of the session somehow, and then hypothetically, 'cause this happened to me last year, then hypothetically doesn't make it to the bill, doesn't make it to the board the last night, despite being approved as a legislative workload item, when we approve a base budget bill or, or sorry, a budget bill that's going to …
S.B. 202 Mowing Ordinance Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Presented SB 202 to set the same mowing-time standard for private and public golf courses and allow early morning mowing, citing a course that needs to start mowing at 5:30 AM.
▶ Watch at 1:24:12Read what they said
Thank you. Senate Bill 2 0 2 is a bill we ran last session and it got delayed unfortunately, and then it got on the last night of the session and then it didn't make it. So here we are. Um, basically what this is, is, um, there are private golf courses, public golf courses. Uh, there is a difference between mowing practices with public golf courses and there is with private golf courses, uh, when they're privately owned, cities tend to make ordinances that limit the mowing time. Uh, when they're public courses, the cities tend not to make mowing, uh, times because it's their golf course. So, uh, the idea here is, uh, allowing, you know, the standard …
S.B. 202 Mowing Ordinance Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Moved to pass SB 202 out of committee with a favorable recommendation.
▶ Watch at 1:28:06Read what they said
Go ahead. I'll make a motion to, yeah. To pass the bill, Senate bill 2 0 2 out with favorable recommendation. Okay.
S.B. 202 Mowing Ordinance Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Said the bill was compromised with the city, moving the mowing start time from the original 5:00 AM to 5:30 AM, and that the city is indifferent to the current version.
▶ Watch at 1:28:17Read what they said
Sum? I'll just say quickly. We did have a lot of conversations with the city last year. Um, and, you know, we compromised from, uh, they wanted six o'clock, you know, my bill, original bill was five o'clock, got to five 30 and I think everybody was okay with that. So that, that's probably why they just are indifferent to where it's at now. Okay.
S.B. 16 Tax Credit Review Process Amendments · House Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 29, 2026
Presented SB 16, which changes the timing of the periodic review of tax credits and exemptions to a five-year period and allows an audit as part of the review process.
▶ Watch at 1:52:12Read what they said
Senate Bill 16 is an interim, uh, revenue and taxation committee. Bill, uh, my house sponsor is Steve Ellison. I'm happy to accept questions. I'm kidding. Uh, this really, this just changes the timing from, uh, our periodic review of tax credits and tax exemptions, uh, and gives us a five year period, and also gives us the, uh, ability to, uh, you know, look at the, um, review process in a more in depth process by asking for an audit. Um, the chairs, uh, can do it, so happy to entertain other questions, uh, should the committee feel need? Okay. That concludes your presentation.
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Presents SB 60, which would lower the income tax rate by 0.05 percentage points from 4.5% to 4.45%, citing predictability, competitiveness, and a first-year cost of about $123 million.
▶ Watch at 2:11:43Read what they said
Well, uh, I appreciate that. Um, you know, thank you. Um, just glad to have a income tax conversation. Um, just, you know, we, we talk about this a lot and there's a lot of, you know, reasons to, um, you know, that we've debated, but we have been on, as a state, we have been on a path of trying to reduce income tax and shift more towards consumptive based taxes. And that long-term mission creates a lot of things. But one, a consumptive tax is a transparent tax. It's easy to collect. It's simple, it's transparent, uh, you know what you're paying, you get a receipt, it shows what the amount is, uh, even on high-end purchases, you …
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Responds that income tax does not fund social services, that income tax is a volatile revenue source, and that revenue projections are conservative and February numbers may change the picture.
▶ Watch at 2:16:34Read what they said
Yeah, it's great. Um, first of all, remember with our prohibitions, uh, you know, with the constitutional wall on income tax, income tax isn't spent on social services. Uh, and, and for the most part, when we're trying to balance those cuts, we're trying to deal with general fund dollars. You know that better than I do, but I'm helping the public, right? Yeah. Um, the, the other part too that, that's important to consider is that income tax is actually, um, after tangible personal property income tax is our highest variability tax. In other words, it has the most volatility. And when you're dealing with taxes that have high volatility, you get less certainty and less certainty means less …
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Moves that the committee pass SB 60 to the floor with a favorable recommendation.
▶ Watch at 2:27:34Read what they said
to make a motion on your bill? Sure. I'll make a motion that we, uh, pass house or Senate Bill 60 out of the favor. Recommendation, The motion is to pass Senate Bill 60 to the floor with a favorable recommendation.
S.B. 60 Income Tax Rate Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Says state revenue has grown faster than inflation over ten years, that Utah ranks 29th in income tax competitiveness, and that a rate reduction applies equally to everyone.
▶ Watch at 2:28:31Read what they said
Okay, thanks. I recognize, uh, that there's sensitivity to things ass funds. I, I just want, I, I was gonna pull up a graph and I'll spare everybody that at the moment, um, just realize, uh, the, the state revenue system in the last 10 years has increased on average, if you just put it over, you know, stretch it all out, just look at the averages. We're, we're on a 7.1% increase per year. Okay? Inflation over that time period is 4.2%. Okay? If you dutch it out over the same time period per year. So we have roughly had a greater than inflation 3% growth in government every year for the last 10 years. And, uh, and that's …
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Explained the substitute replaces last year's bill with a one-year delayed effective date and that input from stakeholders and counties is still being taken.
▶ Watch at 2:31:09Read what they said
Yeah, thanks. Um, the current online version is basically last year's bill with a one year delayed effective date. Uh, in meeting with, uh, you know, some stakeholders and going through several of the issues, uh, you know, trying to find a program that could be easily administered, uh, we're still working with county, still working with several, still taking input. And at the end of the day, I think we will continue to take input. And so for that purpose, uh, you know, uh, we're moving with the first sub, uh, and I'm happy to address those things during my presentation as to what's different between the two. But there you go.
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Presented the substitute bill, comparing the circuit breaker program with the deferral program, describing changes to income limits, deferral amounts, interest rates, the 10-year delinquency period, and veterans exemption language.
▶ Watch at 2:31:56Read what they said
Pretty excited. I got Senator Esias vote on one. I I, sorry. Senator McKay. I got her vote on a substitute too. Just thought I'd soft. I hear it. Yeah. Uh, I just thought I'd, uh, I just thought I'd share this ta this, uh, slide. I don't know if, uh, it's, uh, available to come up, but this is, um, property tax rate relief from the circuit breaker. This is actually, this data is actually presented by, um, the Chem Gardner Institute over this summer. Uh, this number shows that we have, uh, you know, 20%, uh, the people have taken up the circuit breaker. 80% have not taken up the circuit breaker. So when people talk about the, …
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Moved to pass Senate Bill 78 with a favorable recommendation.
▶ Watch at 2:56:34Read what they said
I'll make a motion, um, that we pass out Senate Bill 78 with a favor recommendation and happy to speak to that.
S.B. 78 Property Tax Relief Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Responded to public comment, argued the deferral program would help more low-income seniors than the circuit breaker, and said the veterans exemption language will change.
▶ Watch at 2:56:42Read what they said
It. Thank you. You know, it's interesting, um, the, the public comment in on this bill is always, uh, is always compelling. And I appreciate it. Um, because, you know, when you cut programs, change programs, there's always some uncertainty that comes with it. So I appreciate that. Let, let me, you know, the crazy thing is, is I couldn't help, as I was sitting there listening, I couldn't help that if we had no circuit breaker in place and we were proposing this program as a way to help seniors, then, you know, low income seniors, I'm pretty sure all the advocates that are speaking against the bill, you know, would flip, it'd be the other way. They'd be …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Asks the committee to replace Senate Bill 97 with the first substitute.
▶ Watch at 3:06:32Read what they said
Okay, thank you. Uh, this one also has a sub, um, just nature of the process. So I'm gonna ask that we delete entitle and bodies, uh, senate bill 97 and replace it with first substitute Senate bill 97.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Presents the bill, covering a cap on property tax increases, limits on fund balances, the residential exemption, the new growth definition, reserve account interest, and tangible personal property, and says the bill is not final.
▶ Watch at 3:07:08Read what they said
Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Um, this, this started as an interim bill where, uh, and the interim committee, uh, supported it. Um, and really we were looking at caps and what I've, uh, you know, looking at caps and looking at ways of trying to, uh, you know, trying to deal with, um, escalating or variability of property tax. Our property tax system system is fantastic, uh, as it protects. Um, uh, it protects the government institutions with revenue, but it is, uh, terrible sometimes from the taxpayer standpoint because the taxpayers seize variability every year. Uh, and it can go up a little bit, go down a little bit, or if they go through ation, it goes …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Explains that an owner can rebut the presumption by showing the property is their primary residence, and discusses duplexes on a single tax parcel.
▶ Watch at 3:16:50Read what they said
Perception? Okay. So you'd go and rebut it by the fact that you live there, therefore it is your primary residence. Mm-hmm. And as fair, the owner on title and, And then my neighbor, the same thing. Who do I rebut it to? The county. County. Mm-hmm. Before I get my tax notice. Like if they send one, assuming that it's not, that it, because it's, it's, uh, I should say 'cause it's gonna fall on my renter, right? Mm-hmm. If, if, uh, he gets a notice or I, I guess the corporation will get a notice that the taxes are 5,000 instead of 45% of 5,000. Then um, do I have to pay the 5,000 because I, I didn't …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Explains the cap and prohibition sections, and that school districts are exempt from the 5% cap only to meet the minimum school program requirement.
▶ Watch at 3:19:17Read what they said
Uh, it is, so, uh, if you read 6 74 through 6 6 77 through 6 79, correct? That is the prohibition. Um, that's, that's the cap is 6 74 through 6 76, and then 6 77 through 6 79 is the prohibition. Uh, on, you know, for example, if on 6 79 it says where they in accordance with 53 F 2 6 0 1, that's the minimum school program. Mm-hmm. So they have to maintain a minimum effort to participate in that program. In order to do that, they may have to increase their taxes more than 5%. This exempts them from that 5% cap for the purpose of catching up with the state's minimum program.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Says the school district exemption applies only to districts in the minimum school program.
▶ Watch at 3:20:23Read what they said
And we're excluding that from the increase or the, the cap Only if they're participating in a minimum school program.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Offers another reason the cap may not last. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 3:20:54Read what they said
Can I tell you a better reason to hate it? Can I tell you a better reason to hate the cat?
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Argues the cap could lower local bond ratings by limiting cities' property tax flexibility, and says that trade-off is not worth it.
▶ Watch at 3:20:59Read what they said
lemme tell you a better reason why this cap probably will not last much longer than the first sub. Uh, you know, to, uh, everybody's chagrin, I'm sure. Um, the cap itself has problems, uh, from an underwriting standpoint. Um, but the bigger underwriting risk is, um, flexibility as it turns out when we look at bond ratings. So, uh, the, you know, looking, I talked with, uh, folks from public finance today, including the treasurer, and we walked through risks. And one of the things that that gives us a good bond rating at the local municipal and entity level is we have flexibility in property tax. They do not have flexibility in sales tax, they don't have flexibility …
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Agrees with the concern and says the cap will not be in the second substitute.
▶ Watch at 3:23:11Read what they said
You and I agree. Just don't tell the cities yet. Okay. They have, they've this really hot negotiation. They're Very aware. They, But yeah, yeah, they, they have me like over a barrel. It's gonna be a very tough negotiation, but just know, uh, don't tell 'em yet, like I said, but, uh, it will not make it to the second substitute.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Has no objection to the amendment and says the change would effectively remove the cap.
▶ Watch at 3:23:45Read what they said
None at all. Because I do not wanna vote for this at 5%. By all means, if you want to add two zeros to that number, uh, it, that will be just as effective as removing the cap. So yeah, I'm fine either way.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Moves to pass the first substitute out favorably and asks that the 500% amendment be withheld for drafting reasons.
▶ Watch at 3:26:24Read what they said
Uh, I'll make a motion that, uh, I'll ask Senator Brammer to withhold his 500% just for the purpose of, of drafting cleanliness. Uh, save us the time. I, but the spirit of it is there and I feel it, as does everyone else. Uh, you have my commitment that that's, that's gonna be taken care of. So, uh, with that, I'll move that the first substitute, uh, Senate Bill 97, uh, move forward with a favorable recommendation.
S.B. 97 Tax Revenue Amendments · Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee · Jan 28, 2026
Waives summation and says the bill aims to balance the interests of local entities and taxpayers.
▶ Watch at 3:27:02Read what they said
Uh, no, but I appreciate the committee's, uh, faith and trust in, in working through these issues. Uh, trust me being, dealing with this issue, uh, as we look at property Texas specifically, and I'll tell those behind me, the key is, and, and we all know this, uh, is do no harm, right? And so, uh, the idea of trying to shore up this process to, um, you know, to provide balance for entities and taxpayers is really important, uh, to my constituents and to all of our constituents. And the cities have the same constituents as well, and I know it's important to them as well. So, uh, with that, uh, I'll, I'll waive summation.
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Explains that Amendment 1 removes language that let former legislators lobby outside their branch during the cooling-off period, keeping that period stronger.
▶ Watch at 40:57Read what they said
Uh, essentially what it, what it said before was, um, it allowed, it, it was the, it was related to legislators and their ability to lobby once they leave and it allowed them to leave outside the branch of government. This removes that so that for the same cool down period, they can't lobby outside of their branch of government, uh, as well. And so it's, uh, it's to try to keep the cool down period as strong as possible for legislators.
S.B. 145 Lobbying Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Moves to favorably recommend SB 145.
▶ Watch at 51:43Read what they said
Thank you. Um, I, I'll make a motion for us to favorably recommend Senate Bill 1 45 lobbying amendments.
H.B. 45 Fire Code Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Moved to pass HB 45 out favorably, with the condition that the sponsor confirm the UN was not involved in drafting the bill.
▶ Watch at 56:20Read what they said
Senator McKay? Yeah, thanks. I'll make a motion that we pass it out with favorable recommendation. As long as the house representative and his summation will tell us that the UN was not involved in drafting, uh, this bill,
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate Education Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Presented SB 77 to update dual language immersion statute provisions and said the presentation would be supported by former Senator Howard Stephenson online.
▶ Watch at 2:59:29Read what they said
this is a bill that was, uh, a bill that we had last session, that on the last night when the last hour, uh, the house got really excited about a vaping bill. And this bill got pushed off the house calendar, so we get to do it again, uh, which is equally delightful. Um, and how, and Senate Bill 77 is, uh, is about our dual language immersion program. Uh, we realized there were some issues related to, uh, the qualifications as they were related to the statute. And so, uh, we had the advocates, especially my predecessor, former Senator Howard Stevenson, uh, who is online and ready to help with the, uh, and offer some help on the …
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate Education Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Said the bill keeps the assurance to dual language immersion students that they can take upper-level college courses taught by qualified teachers, and extends language proficiency assessments through grade 12; the bill passed unanimously last year but was not voted on before the session ended.
▶ Watch at 3:00:42Read what they said
Um, this ensures that these students, 50,000 students who are enrolled in dual language immersion, uh, have the assurance that we made when they signed up, that they would be able to take upper level college courses in the language after passing the AP test in ninth grade. Uh, this ensures that those are upper level courses that the teachers are qualified, and the bill also provides that the proficiency assessment for language that are given in third through eighth grade also extend through the 12th grade. This passed unanimously through the process, uh, in the Senate and the House Committee last year. Uh, but as was noted, was tied up because of an important bill that made it, uh, …
S.B. 77 Dual Language Immersion Amendments · Senate Education Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Explained that the State Board of Education changed the test provider last year, and the bill has that same provider give the proficiency assessments through grade 12.
▶ Watch at 3:02:05Read what they said
Senator? The test, uh, Mr. Chairman, if I may Go ahead. The, uh, the provider of the test was changed by the State Board of Education, uh, last year. Um, and this bill simply provides that that same provider will provide these proficiency assessments for up to grade through grade 12.
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · Senate Education Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Presented the bill, saying it aims to improve campus safety by requiring school incidents in student record sharing, shortening the record-transfer deadline from 30 to 5 days, allowing districts to deny enrollment for safe school violations, and encouraging administrators to check the data gateway before enrolling students.
▶ Watch at 3:06:05Read what they said
Yeah, we have two amendments online. We're gonna move the second one. Okay. And I'm happy to speak to that. Gimme just one second. I am pulling up my notes on the bill. Um, the purpose of this, uh, bill is, uh, an ongoing effort to try and better secure our campuses, uh, at least our, our school and high school campuses. Um, and try and improve, uh, safety. In talking with CCJJ and talking with, uh, education LEAs trying to figure out the best way to deal with reintegration plans, um, we came up with Senate Bill 1 67, uh, to make it so that there's better communication, uh, require school incidents to be included in the student record …
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · Senate Education Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Said he would review Senator Owens's bill and ensure the two would work together, and that the bill is about security rather than ownership.
▶ Watch at 3:08:18Read what they said
I don't know Senator Owens's bill yet. I'll go back and review it and assure you that we'll make sure that they work together, that they not be necessarily competitive. And, and if not, I'm happy to take this subject matter from this bill and just put it in Senator Owens. Bill that I don't need to run one more bill. But the, the concept here is, Uh, Just is for security, so it's not really brand of ownership. So, but I'll make sure they work together. Senator.
S.B. 167 Reintegration for Disciplined Students · Senate Education Committee · Jan 26, 2026
Thanked the committee and colleagues Senator Escamilla and Senator Cullimore, and said the bill would help LEAs and courts communicate and work together to keep at-risk students from being placed in classrooms with potential offenders.
▶ Watch at 3:12:12Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you very much. I appreciate the questions and appreciate the interest. Um, this, uh, it was interesting how these issues came about. Uh, and also, you know, working with, and, and talking with Senator Escamilla, uh, she's worked in this space and Senator Cullimore on this issue as well. It's been very valuable and eye-opening to see that, uh, it, it is hard to have this communication, but giving our LEAs the option and the courts the ability to work together and make sure that we're, um, you know, that we're really collaborating to make sure that we're not putting students that are in the classroom at risk, uh, with, uh, with other, uh, with potential offenders. So, …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Presented the bill, saying it renames the committee to General Oversight, expands membership from 10 to 13 by adding two House members and one Senate member, removes the monthly meeting requirement, allows review of any legislative issue, adds a whistleblower closed-meeting option, lets the committee delay a rule for 60 days, removes paper publication requirements, and gives the committee access to an auditor.
▶ Watch at 2:47:50Read what they said
Thanks. I'm surprised everybody's not here for my bill. This was, you know, jam packed. There's still enough to, uh, Uh, that's great. Well, okay. Uh, Senate Bill 1 48 is a pretty, um, simple bill that has, you know, an acknowledgement of the evolution of the Admin rules and General Government Oversight Committee. Um, it started out as admin rules, and then they added general government oversight, and then it became, you know, this, uh, this iteration. So the first thing that the bill does is it acknowledges this evolving role and changes the name of the committee to just General Oversight Committee. It was a mouthful before that. It's less of a mouthful now. Um, we're expanding the …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Responded that the committee is small, that its majority share is lower than most committees, that minority leadership and members supported the bill, and that adding members was meant to help meet quorum.
▶ Watch at 2:54:10Read what they said
So, um, all of our, so this committee specifically right, uh, is one of the lowest repre representations of the mor, uh, majority party. It's a four to three, if I remember right on this committee. Um, but most of the rest of the committee are 70% or more, um, for all of our committees here on the legislature. And so that was the thinking. Uh, if you'll notice, after talking with, you know, the minority leader here in the Senate, uh, and the minority members on, uh, on them, they, they all voted for the bill. And so I think everybody gets what we're trying to accomplish. I will say it is very rare for this committee to be …
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Made a lighthearted remark in response. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:56:15Read what they said
I won't hold it against you. So many other things. No, I'm just kidding. Okay,
S.B. 148 General Oversight Amendments · Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee · Jan 23, 2026
Responded to public comment, saying the committee has not had membership bounds before, the main aim was to give the House two additional seats, and he is open to ideas on partisan balance.
▶ Watch at 3:01:02Read what they said
Um, the other thing that was brought up, uh, I apologize, what was the name again, brother? We, Mr. Westman. Brother Westman. Sorry. Yeah, it's a different job. Um, so, uh, what I'd say is, uh, Mr. Westman's point is, is well served. Um, this committee has not had bounds before. And so really, we're you just formalizing what happens now? Um, I understand the partisan mix, and I'm happy to keep thinking about it. Our primary objective was give the house two additional seats. And I don't have a lot of Senator Vickers that are begging to be on this committee. Um, but, you know, felt wrong to just do one. Um, anyway, that, that's, I I'm open to …
S.B. 90 Occupational Licenses for Veterans and Service Members · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Moves to pass S.B. 90 out favorably, saying it is well thought out and has had broad stakeholder input.
▶ Watch at 1:18:22Read what they said
I'll make a motion that we've passed the bill out favorably. I think, uh, there's been well thought out. There's been a lot of input from a lot of stakeholders, obviously early in the process. So if there's, you know, something that comes up between now and then, I'm confident we can work it out. But thank you for all your hard work.
S.B. 120 Towing Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
McCay asks whether counties with competing ordinances on tow location are a concern.
▶ Watch at 1:25:29Read what they said
Yeah, I, I said we all make a towing bill. We all decide to run a towing bill at least once in our careers. If you haven't, you know, I encourage you to, 'cause you, you know, you get to learn a whole lot like Senator Winterton Hass mentioned, um, you know, unintended consequences. So, uh, to, to representative or to Senator Musselman's point. Um, are we also worried about like each county having competing ordinances about location or that kinda stuff? Are you worried about that at all?
S.B. 120 Towing Modifications · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
McCay says he understands the concern and asks whether the bill lets counties choose their towing companies.
▶ Watch at 1:26:19Read what they said
Yeah. So that it's rare from, From the toes perspective person being towed. I can see the perspective. It would be adv advantageous for them to be, you know, still to have a place inside, you know, the county. I mean, that seems reasonable unless you know, it's on, I'm just thinking Mexican hat or, you know mm-hmm. Just, you're out there, you know, there's all kinds of places you could create a lot out of. Right. Um, I guess the idea of protect, so are you telling me that this is, this protects local businesses that are in the towing business, such that the county is choosing their towing buddies to be the one towing? That's what I'm trying …
S.B. 48 Kratom Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asked David Kyle whether the bill's enforcement and funding components depend on passage of the other kratom bills.
▶ Watch at 2:00:30Read what they said
Thanks. Uh, quick question for you, David. So if we don't pass Senator Vickers, bill, we don't get increased enforcement and those components right? Through taxes, right, Right. Through through S Bill. Oh, that's the other bill. That's Right. That's the other bill, yes. Right. Yes. But The three different bills, right. We've got a menu here, Right? So the, I guess the question I'm trying to answer, uh, like I agree with the Senator Kel proposal, right? That's correct. Yes. So I'm trying to figure out what if something else comes up and stops, you know, that Bill and we don't get the enforcement or we, you know, those kinds of things. That's, that's what I'm struggling to figure …
S.B. 48 Kratom Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asked follow-up questions about the difference between the bill's approach and a full ban, and about the 0.4% exception. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:02:08Read what they said
'cause you guys are, you know, uh, I understand where you're coming from. We would prefer, you know, your group prefers the ban and We're worried about legitimizing, Legitimizing. Well, When you, you know, your tax, if, if you create the loophole mm-hmm. You know, you, you, you, and then we have a plan to, we have another bill to tax it. So you're base, you're creating, I mean, you're, you're, you're shielding this the small percentage, right? Not, not, Not this, the small of, of seven hydroxy, Not this one. No. Yeah. If you shove Shield seven hydroxy anything raised percent, right? No. You're violating the laws. Anything except 0.4% of the, so think of it this way, if …
S.B. 48 Kratom Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asked whether the other bill would cover seven-hydroxy-mitragynine if the two were separated.
▶ Watch at 2:03:44Read what they said
So you're saying Mike's bill, um, it would not, would not cover the seven hydroxy, right? If it was separated, correct.
S.B. 48 Kratom Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Restated his understanding of how the bills relate to each other. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:04:08Read what they said
This is what I understood. If we don't have the regular, this is, this is the part that I understood, which is why I think, uh, this is, I'm just taking some leisure, I guess, or some leave here.
S.B. 48 Kratom Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Commented on David Kyle's and Walter Plumb's concerns about any level of seven-hydroxy-mitragynine and asked for further clarification. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:04:34Read what they said
But I, I think, I mean, in as to, uh, Mr. Plump's comments, like any level of seven hydroxy is Is Yeah. Is not safe. And if, if I could continue to clarify.
S.B. 48 Kratom Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Summarized his understanding that the bills work together and asked whether both could pass.
▶ Watch at 2:05:30Read what they said
Yeah. And then, and then if Senator ml's bill passes, then that goes, So if I understand correctly, this is a belt and suspenders type of, uh, type of deal where we've got, we've got Senator Vickers with the just in case approach on Hydroxy seven, and the other limitations taxing component, if the policy of the legislature is to leave the enforcement, that that's one component, right?
S.B. 48 Kratom Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asked whether concerns about the other bill's passage were behind the reasons for this bill and expressed support for both bills moving forward.
▶ Watch at 2:06:14Read what they said
You know what I mean? Is your, is your concern, uh, that if those things pass it, that this bill, that ML'S bill won't get the same consideration as as these parts? I believe That was, um, one of the concerns. Okay. Moving forward. I'm just trying to, I'm just trying to boil into, because I, I legitimately, I think you're kind of, I mean, you're on the same page in a lot of ways. Senator ml wants to go, you know, four or five, 10 steps further than Senator Vickers. He's setting up a, you know, a regulatory structure that if we continue to sell, but if Senator ml's bill is, we just ban it. I, I don't think …
S.B. 48 Kratom Revisions · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Asked whether the bill would cover synthetic seven-hydroxy-mitragynine in products without the kratom label and said he was confused about achieving both objectives. · speaker not certain
▶ Watch at 2:07:49Read what they said
And what I'm getting is this will also, sorry, Senator is like, this will also cover, uh, synthetic Yes, yes. That's generated off that There could be, there could be, uh, implemented in other products Yeah. That don't necessarily have the Kratom label. Yes. Right. And so that's why I'm a, I'm just a little bit confused about how we accomplish, uh, both objectives. I think there's a meaningful way forward for both of the issues, but this bill on the Hydroxy seven is, feels more important than the other two of Senator B'S bills given your position on the, on Senator Michel's, is that correct? I, Go Ahead, sorry. Yes, I would say that, yeah. Okay. Yeah.
S.B. 61 Funeral Services Licensing Amendments · Senate Business and Labor Committee · Jan 21, 2026
Moves that SB 61 be recommended to the full Senate with a favorable recommendation.
▶ Watch at 2:37:02Read what they said
I'll move the house that Senate Bill 61, uh, be recommended to the full body Senate with a favorable recommendation.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 2) · Jan 21, 2026
Thanks the sponsor, explains why a separate reckless standard would distinguish knowing conduct from reckless conduct, and says he supports the bill.
▶ Watch at 15:02Read what they said
Thank you very much, Mr. President. Um, I just wanted to thank the sponsor. I had some questions, uh, yesterday as we ran through the bill and he did a great job of helping, uh, dissuade the, the difference between those two. And I will say that without a reckless standard in, uh, in statute as it relates to this criminal obligation, um, or a criminal behavior, it's, it's definitely important to separate between those that are doing a behavior that is, that is knowingly or, you know, they have actual knowledge versus what, you know, the Utah's general definition of, of recklessness means aware of, but consciously disregard a substantial or unjustifiable risk. The disregard must be a gross …
S.B. 16 Tax Credit Review Process Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Presents S.B. 16, which moves the tax credit review schedule from every three years to five years, allows a deep review of one or two credits, and allows the committee to request an audit of any credit at any time.
▶ Watch at 19:40Read what they said
Thank you Mr. President Senate Bill 16 is a revenue and taxation interim committee bill. Uh, the purpose of the bill, uh, was taxes our income tax review schedule and instead of making, uh, instead of making, so the committee reviews the income tax credits every three years, it extends it out to five years and adds for, uh, the ability for the committee to do a deep dive into one or two committee into one or two, um, uh, tax credits as opposed to the surface level treatment that they get now. It also gives the option to, uh, to look at and, and ask for an audit, uh, on any one of these credits at any time. So …
S.B. 18 Criminal Offense Modifications · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Moves to reconsider the earlier passage of S.B. 16, TRA tax credit review process amendments, in order to place an amendment.
▶ Watch at 27:55Read what they said
Thank you President. Got so excited about passing Senate bill, uh, Senate bill, uh, 16. I missed an amendment on line. So I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider our actions on Senate bill 16 TRA tax credit review process amendments. I think we have a motion to reconsider probably for the purpose of placing an amendment.
S.B. 16 Tax Credit Review Process Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Sponsor says a minor drafting error was caught after the interim committee passed the bill and moves to adopt the first amendment to S.B. 16.
▶ Watch at 28:44Read what they said
Thank you President. After this bill passed in the interim committee, there was a error that was caught in the, uh, in the drafting process. A minor error. And so the, I make a motion. We, um, that we adopt, uh, first Amendment of Senate Bill 16 Tax review cross process amendments.
S.B. 16 Tax Credit Review Process Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Sponsor says the amendment is nonsubstantive, so the bill keeps its committee bill status, and moves that S.B. 16 pass as amended under suspension of the rules.
▶ Watch at 29:19Read what they said
Thank you. Um, as you guys will all appreciate, uh, because it is a nons substantive drafting amendment, it maintains its committee bill, um, status, uh, uh, with its unanimous approval. Um, thanks to a rule change we made last year. So gratefully, uh, small amendment like that doesn't necessarily take it out of, uh, its committee drafting pro or out out of its, uh, committee favorability. Um, with that president I will remove that Senate bill 16 tax credit review process amendments pass as amended under suspension of the rules.
S.B. 30 Human Trafficking, Exploitation, and Smuggling Amendments · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Asked whether a crosswalk or document shows how the bill's provisions changed, and raised concern that sexually explicit conduct involving minors may be made a lesser crime.
▶ Watch at 46:45Read what they said
Yeah. Thank you Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Senator Musselman, will you yield? I will. Mr. President. Go ahead. Senator McKay, Is there a, is there a crosswalk of some kind or document that can show how these have changed as we're reading through it? It's tough as we're chasing through those to try and see how one relates to the other. I'm just wanna make sure, as I read the, as I was listening to the explanation, it sounded like we were taking some sexually explicit behavior, uh, that a minor might be a victim of and making it, um, a lesser crime or some of those things. And so I just wanted to see …
S.J.R. 3 Joint Resolution Amending Rules Relating to the Practice of Law · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Sponsor explains that the resolution would amend the court rules so the Supreme Court sets attorney licensing fees under the same standards other state agencies follow, citing an audit that separated administrative fees from others.
▶ Watch at 1:11:52Read what they said
Thank you very much. Um, this is, uh, uh, this is an effort of the Government Oversight and Rules Committee, uh, rules, uh, administrative Rules Committee. Um, in reviewing the, um, uh, the licensing fees that are required throughout the state, what we've determined, or what we've noticed is that there is one organization that is consistently not following state process and state process in code for setting administrative fees as it relates to regulating the practice of law. And so the purpose of Senate Joint Resolution three is to amend the court's rules to make it so that the Supreme Court, uh, when they're, uh, imposing the licensing fee on the authorized practice on the practice of law, that …
S.J.R. 3 Joint Resolution Amending Rules Relating to the Practice of Law · Senate floor debate (day 1) · Jan 20, 2026
Sponsor waives summation and moves to advance the resolution from second reading to third reading instead of passing it across the chamber.
▶ Watch at 1:13:37Read what they said
Motion. Thank you. I'll waive summation, but I'll make a different motion instead of passing it all the, all the way across. Um, I've been asked to just move Senate Joint Resolution three to the third reading. So my motion is, uh, to not exercise the, the exer exercise, the suspension of the rules, but to move this from second to third. So that's my motion.
From the official recordings' automatic captions, with speakers and summaries identified by AI. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.