Norman K. Thurston

Thank you Mr. Speaker. So this bill formally defines Utah State Protection Advocacy Agency and clarifies the legislature's intent regarding its responsibility to represent advocate for all disabilities disabled, individual statewide. It also will in intends or attempts to improve transparency and legislative oversight by requesting that the agency provides certain information to legislative committees about meetings held, services provided, population served, et cetera, et cetera, throughout the year. So this will enga strengthen public engagement and accountability and also, um, be the first time that the legislature actually has some type of a formal relationship with the State's Protection Advocacy Agency.

Yeah. So federal law requires the state to have a state protection advocacy agency. Federal law allows the governor to just designate that, whoever that is. So we need to have one. The governor designates one. Uh, so we've had one, I it's been over 40 years that the state has done this. The legislature has never really expressed an interest in this at all. It's just been something that the federal law requires and the governor does. So this now puts a marker in state statute recognizing that this thing does in fact exist.

Yeah, in fact, in fact, Mr. Speaker, it just requests that they report to the legislature. We we're not actually requiring them to do anything different than they're currently doing. We're just asking nicely.

Thank you. We'll sponsor yield to a series of questions. Representative, will you yield? Yes. Yes. Representative.

Could you describe to us the difference between a tobacco specialty retailer and a general tobacco re retailer in the bill?

And so this, the amendment made in the Senate clarifies that there are those separate categories and tiers of tobacco retailers. Is that correct?

You Madam Speaker ProAm, I would like to reserve the right to make two motions.

So colleagues, there's gonna be a motion to substitute and a motion to amend in just a second, but I wanna explain what the bill does because the, if I describe the substitute, it wouldn't make any sense. So what this bill does, the Office of the Inspector General has been around since 2011, and it's actually technically called the Office of the Inspector General of Medicaid Services. This was established to have better controls over fraud, waste, and abuse within the Medicaid program. It's had a rocky history. Uh, we've had some difficult challenges because it was established as a completely independent entity with no real oversight by anyone. So they were completely free to choose what they wanted, …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Tom Peterson, will you yield to a series of questions?

So I am very passionate about certain animals, and in our backyard in the spring, the snakes come out to do what snakes do in the spring in our grass. And you can't see them in the grass until you're mowing the lawn. And we have tried electric mowers, we've tried battery mowers, we've tried gas powered motors, mowers. But when you find one of those snakes, or when your mower finds one of those snakes, it's not a pretty site. And I'm very passionate about the life and friendliness of those snakes. And so I would like to ask the sponsor if he thinks that electric powered lawnmowers would give those snakes more warning or less warning that we're …

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, there's been a lot of polite dancing around and I'm about to say the quiet part out loud. So there we go. All the eyes are over here now. Uh, they're over my time here. And I've, I've dealt with these bills as well that we have had a continual series of these bills, their animal shelters across the state. A new best practice becomes available, which makes sense. And the vast majority of them adopt that best practice because they say, that makes sense. We'll do it. We have two animal shelters that are being, can I say buts? Is that decorum all right? That, that are being buts and just resist adopting …

Thank, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have concerns with this bill on the policy of this bill itself. Um, the deferral program. I've asked my elderly residents and I've tried to explain them. I actually think the deferral program is probably the right policy, but it's extremely unpopular. The, uh, residents in my area that are complaining about, you know, fixed income people and I tell 'em about the deferral program and they're like, yeah, that's not gonna do it for me. That's not what we just like, why can't we just keep the circuit breaker program? So what I worry about this bill is we're gonna get rid of the state circuit breaker program. We're gonna allow the counties …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have never had that happen before. I apologize to my colleagues for losing my cool. Um, so we're putting this onto the counties. The counties have to decide to design a program. They have to figure out how to pay for the program. They have to figure out how to recover the, the re revenue from somewhere else. And what ends up happening is, is when they don't do it, the only option for those seniors is the deferral program. Now, like I said, the deferral program is probably the right policy. I can't argue with that. But what I worry about is that this is not the policy that my voters and my constituents …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative? Uh, will you yield to a series of questions? Yes. Yes, sir. Representative Thurston, could You give me an example of non-curricular clubs that would be allowed at all levels? Elementary, junior high, high school, Non non-curricular. Yeah, sorry, Mr. Speaker, non-curricular clubs. Yes.

Well, I'd like to ask you then, the amendment that you just adopted said, um, non-curricular clubs that do not relate to religious issues. Oh, I apologize. Yes, you're right. I'm sorry. Yes. Non-religious, non-political or public policy or social justice. I apologize. Yes. So, um, this is my concern, and I probably should have mentioned it when we're discussing the amendment, but it's still relevant. First Amendment is a pretty important thing, and courts have held that religious speech is one of the most highly protected along with political speech. So we're saying if you want to get together and talk about chess, no problem. You want to get together and talk about the 10 Commandments. You want to …

Yeah. So there was a clause that needed to be added to the bill so that it, that it connected to the proper section of code in another part which establishes the status quo.

Yes. Uh, Mr. Speaker, the parties have been working through the night. We believe we have a, a proposal that, uh, should address their concerns with the bill.

Representative Thurston to you. Thank You Mr. Speaker. I move that we adopt fourth substitute Senate Bill 2 29.

Oh, yes, I would. Um, so colleagues, one of the main points that we have heard from state employees, um, there are some employees who really, really like what they currently have and don't feel like they should be forced to change. So what the forest sub does is it allows every state employee to choose, keep what you currently have or move to the new version of the, of the benefits which is outlined in the bill. So it's strictly their choice. They will have plenty of time to get educated, get informed, and if they want to keep what they have, they can keep the current package that they have or they can choose the new package. New …

Oh, yes, I would. Um, so colleagues, one of the main points that we have heard from state employees, um, there are some employees who really, really like what they currently have and don't feel like they should be forced to change. So what the forest sub does is it allows every state employee to choose, keep what you currently have or move to the new version of the, of the benefits which is outlined in the bill. So it's strictly their choice. They will have plenty of time to get educated, get informed, and if they want to keep what they have, they can keep the current package that they have or they can choose the new package. New …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. That is a fabulous question. It is the intent that whatever choice you make is permanent regardless. So if you choose to stay on the current benefit package, even if you get be a manager, supervisor or whatever, you get to keep that same benefit package. There's no provision in here that said, well, unless or until it's, it is your right to stay on this plan.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. That is a fabulous question. It is the intent that whatever choice you make is permanent regardless. So if you choose to stay on the current benefit package, even if you get be a manager, supervisor or whatever, you get to keep that same benefit package. There's no provision in here that said, well, unless or until it's, it is your right to stay on this plan.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. So for those of you who missed the discussion last night, I think there was one or two of you who may have missed this. Uh, what this bill does something very important. We are, are in a competitive environment as a state government. We are the largest employer in the state. We have to be able to hire a wide variety of employees with a wide variety of skills. We need to be competitive. And so what this bill does is it changes the way we do both our leave benefits by creating a single type of leave, which is paid time off, and also it enhances the retirement benefits. Um, so they're, instead of …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. So for those of you who missed the discussion last night, I think there was one or two of you who may have missed this. Uh, what this bill does something very important. We are, are in a competitive environment as a state government. We are the largest employer in the state. We have to be able to hire a wide variety of employees with a wide variety of skills. We need to be competitive. And so what this bill does is it changes the way we do both our leave benefits by creating a single type of leave, which is paid time off, and also it enhances the retirement benefits. Um, so they're, instead of …

Sorry, Mr. Speaker, um, was sponsor yield to a question. Representative Daley Provo, will you yield to a question?

Uh, could you just explain to us just a little bit about the, the funding source for the research institute?

Your speaker, I am very pleased to be ready to present this consent bill. Uh, this is a consensus bill that is, uh, proposed us to do a study to clarify several points of confusion that have to do with who can provide autism, autism diagnosis services and get reimbursed. There's a lot of confusion in the, um, industry about who can do it and whether they get paid and how they get paid. So rather than try to clarify all of that with no information, the bill simply asks that there be a study done of this and that the insurance department then publish on their website the results of that study so that both the insurance companies and …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of adopting the third substitute. Uh, you know, the other bill was great. I can't fault the sponsors for that. But, uh, since that came out, there were a couple of changes that were identified that were needed. And in particular just colleagues, this idea that, um, every committee is gonna be capped at the number of bills that they can open applies to this committee as well. There's no special treatment of one committee over another. I think that's a, a critical add. And I appreciate our rules chair for bringing this amendment forward. So thank you to the rules chair.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of adopting the third substitute. Uh, you know, the other bill was great. I can't fault the sponsors for that. But, uh, since that came out, there were a couple of changes that were identified that were needed. And in particular just colleagues, this idea that, um, every committee is gonna be capped at the number of bills that they can open applies to this committee as well. There's no special treatment of one committee over another. I think that's a, a critical add. And I appreciate our rules chair for bringing this amendment forward. So thank you to the rules chair.

Representative Thurston. So In the fourth substitute, we are allowing them to produce specifically what types of products?

In the fourth substitute, we are allowing them to produce specifically what types of products?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. A follow up if I may. Representative, will you continue to yield to a series of questions or to a follow up question?

So just to make sure I understand. So these are people who are producing extracts in the state of Utah. Those extracts would not be available for sale in the state of Utah. We're just gonna allow them to produce and export and only for one year. So that gives them time to figure out their business model and other, otherwise the bill goes, has the same requirements that are in the, the third sub, which is Pure Leaf only. Is that correct?

So just to make sure I understand. So these are people who are producing extracts in the state of Utah. Those extracts would not be available for sale in the state of Utah. We're just gonna allow them to produce and export and only for one year. So that gives them time to figure out their business model and other, otherwise the bill goes, has the same requirements that are in the, the third sub, which is Pure Leaf only. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The sponsor yield to a series of questions. Representative Monson, will you yield to a series of questions?

So is it your understanding that these things were already taxed and there was just confusion, or that these things at some point in the past were not taxed and we are adding the tax onto them?

So, colleagues, um, this bill could be read two ways. One of the ways is that we're taxing something new and this would be a tax increase. Um, and if that were the case, I would be all excited about broadening the base, and then I would ask that we also lower the rate. But I think the sponsor has, um, answered my question in a way that makes me think that that's not what's happening here. That this is something that we had always intended to be taxed. It was already being taxed, but we weren't doing an adequate job of collecting it, and the tax commission lacked the tools that they needed to enforce the collection. So with …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I don't like this amendment. Um, for a couple of reasons. Representative Stoddard has already mentioned the ones, my primary ones, but I did want to add that part of this has been a discussion about give and take, give and take, allowing them to continue to produce for a year and allowing them to continue to market hold crem. Originally there was not supposed to be any crem sold in the state of Utah. There's been a lot of give and take going on here, and this is too much give with not enough take. So if the amendment had said, okay, that's fine, we're gonna have a complete ban in the state of …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. So I think many of you are aware of this bill. It's had fairly good coverage and interest out there, but I want to kinda just take you back just a little bit about kinda where the genesis of the bill came from. So, uh, Senator Fillmore and I are the chairs of the State Employee Benefits Advisory Committee. And so all during the last calendar year for 2025, we have been working with, uh, stakeholders including those from the private sector, those from the public sector, uh, government leaders to review and understand how our employees are compensated, uh, compared to the private sector. And as you are all aware, over the past several years, …

Yeah, well I'd really like to have this sub, so I would rather circle and we can get that right on the Vernon. Go.

Speaker Pro. Tim, I move that we encircle second substitute Senate bill 2 2 9. That motion is in order.

Yes. So I believe the, uh, substitute that was being proposed by my colleague is now ready. And we, I would like to encircle so he can present his substitute.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Prote. I would like to yield my time to Representative Loubet.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro tem, uh, motion to adopt third sub, uh, to SB 2 29 in my name.

Uh, yes. So, uh, what this sub is trying to do is I, I had been receiving lots of, uh, emails and calls from constituents. Um, also had conversations with the Utah Public Employees Association about some of the concerns with, uh, the current version of the bill. And one of the things that kind of kept coming up was concerns for somebody who had either chronic illness or if any event a family member had, uh, become ill and they needed to spend time, use sick time for it. Um, under the old policy, they would've had 52 additional sick hours to be able to utilize. And so, um, with this newer, uh, version, this, they would no longer …

Yeah. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, pro Tim. So with this addition, I understand that there may be a circumstance here or there where people are in, in dire straits with this subsidy. We've basically created a safety net that takes care of just about everyone. If you have PTO in your account, you can use your PTO. If you don't, uh, you can get it, get leave from the sick bank. If you have a serious issue, you can get short-term disability that keeps you whole. Even though short-term disability only pays part, you can take money from the leave bank. And if it goes beyond what's allowed under short-term disability, we are providing long-term disability already. And so …

Yeah. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, pro Tim. So with this addition, I understand that there may be a circumstance here or there where people are in, in dire straits with this subsidy. We've basically created a safety net that takes care of just about everyone. If you have PTO in your account, you can use your PTO. If you don't, uh, you can get it, get leave from the sick bank. If you have a serious issue, you can get short-term disability that keeps you whole. Even though short-term disability only pays part, you can take money from the leave bank. And if it goes beyond what's allowed under short-term disability, we are providing long-term disability already. And so …

So what this program does is it eliminates the different buckets of leave. So we combine sick leave with admin or annual leave, which is currently the case into a single category, which is paid time off. You don't have to justify why you're taking it. You don't have to actually be sick. You just contact your manager and say, look, I need to take time off. And so for those employees, it makes it, it simplifies the rules. Now, in the short term, for some employees, there will be a decrease in the total amount of hours, but they are compensable and we're increasing the amount that you can build up. So over time, employees can build more, more …

So what this program does is it eliminates the different buckets of leave. So we combine sick leave with admin or annual leave, which is currently the case into a single category, which is paid time off. You don't have to justify why you're taking it. You don't have to actually be sick. You just contact your manager and say, look, I need to take time off. And so for those employees, it makes it, it simplifies the rules. Now, in the short term, for some employees, there will be a decrease in the total amount of hours, but they are compensable and we're increasing the amount that you can build up. So over time, employees can build more, more …

Oh, yes. That's a fabulous question. We haven't, we've been focusing a little bit on the leave and not as much on the retirement. I appreciate this from our good chair of the, of the RA e committee. Um, so with this modernization of our retirement benefit, tier two employees, whether they're on hybrid or on pension, always have the option to contribute their own own funds to a 401k. This will just say that the first 4% is matched with 2% and they can contribute as much as they want. Well, there's federal limits for the tax benefit, but they can contribute significant amounts of money into their 401k and this, uh, this actually facilitates growth in their retirement …

Oh, yes. That's a fabulous question. We haven't, we've been focusing a little bit on the leave and not as much on the retirement. I appreciate this from our good chair of the, of the RA e committee. Um, so with this modernization of our retirement benefit, tier two employees, whether they're on hybrid or on pension, always have the option to contribute their own own funds to a 401k. This will just say that the first 4% is matched with 2% and they can contribute as much as they want. Well, there's federal limits for the tax benefit, but they can contribute significant amounts of money into their 401k and this, uh, this actually facilitates growth in their retirement …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm, I just want to also, uh, you know, having been both a manager and employee of the state for 16 and a half years, um, I was a manager the whole time I was there. This is a fantastic tool for us to be able to recruit and retain our employees. Um, I know that there's, this is change and that there are people who are afraid of change. They're not sure how it's gonna work for them, but we have assurances from DHRM that they will work with every individual employee to understand how to take full advantage of these benefits going forward. Uh, I think the addition of the leave bank is a …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm, I just want to also, uh, you know, having been both a manager and employee of the state for 16 and a half years, um, I was a manager the whole time I was there. This is a fantastic tool for us to be able to recruit and retain our employees. Um, I know that there's, this is change and that there are people who are afraid of change. They're not sure how it's gonna work for them, but we have assurances from DHRM that they will work with every individual employee to understand how to take full advantage of these benefits going forward. Uh, I think the addition of the leave bank is a …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so lines 4 37, 4 39, uh, change when a school bus or transit vehicle is allowed to be in a bike lane. And the old language was to load or unload passengers and the new language says along the buses or transit vehicles planned route and schedule. Could you just comment as to what the intent?

So it's not your intent. 'cause the way I read this, a motor vehicle may not drive in a bicy lane except along the bus's route. And so it sounds to me like that they can just drive in the bicycle lane along their whole

Okay. So we can have a conversation about that later. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, in talking with UTA, I have some simple amendments that we'll address those lines. I'm just gonna describe the amendments while we're waiting to get the final drafting. But on line 400, the amendment would change the word operating to loading or unloading passengers or making a time point adjustment. So, in other words, they can't just impede the bike lane because it's on their route, they have to actually be doing something. And then, then a similar change on 4 37. It would similarly say, uh, re reinstate to load our unloaded passengers or make a time point adjustment along the vehicle's planned route or schedule. So those, that's be the amendment and …

Thank you. I move that we favorably recommend third substitute Senate bill 2 42 as properly amended.

Yeah. So I would like to move that we adopt Senate Amendment number two, I believe is the correct number. Okay. Would you like to speak to that? Uh, I would, I mean, for all of our acupuncturist friends here, I mean, this, this really was just a typo and oversight, no offense was intended, or no policy was intended to be changes. It was just an oversight. And so this amendment does correct that, and hopefully that makes, um, everybody feel a little bit better that we weren't trying to do something sneaky. It just was an oversight.

I would. So, uh, colleagues, so what this does, we, well, Let me, sorry. Uh, three, number three. Three. I'm sorry. I got the wrong number. Uh, so here's the issue with the nurse practitioners. There is a problem with the schools, and we worked over the interim to try to figure it out we're, we have a solution that's kind of agreed on. I look at that. I don't really actually think it solves the underlying problem. And if we pass this and everyone say, well, we come to an agreement, it was a compromise. Nobody really loves it, but it's the compromise. It's the deal. We're gonna have a real hard time coming back again next year and …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. To me, this is doing something for the sake of doing something, not for the sake of solving a problem. Everybody who looks at that 2000 hour says this really literally does nothing. We already heard comments about that earlier. Um, it's, it's about three months beyond what they're getting in school. There's no restrictions on what quality they get. They could literally just take an internship over their summer, just changing bed pants at the hospital as a, as a volunteer. And so it does nothing. So having that in the bill makes some people feel like, oh, we solved the problem, we solved the problem. Or as I heard, maybe at least it's better …

Thank you. I, I actually have another question if we can go for it. Yeah. So I'm trying to understand, so this is a digital currency, so in the realm of Bitcoin type things, but that the issuer of the currency has the ability to place contractual restrictions on its use, is, am I understanding that correctly?

So, and is anybody doing this today? Is this, does this type of thing actually exists in the world? Is is a unicorn or is it something we've actually seen Senator,

You can see where, I can see where you're headed with this. I'm just, I'm just wondering why anybody would ever use that when there are alternatives that don't have restrictions. Why would, like, it's like me. If I, if I had a credit card, but I got charged 1% every time I used it, I wouldn't use that credit card. I would use someone a different one. Right? Well, The one where they're giving you lots of flights, line miles or whatever.

Okay. Thank you. Mr, can I, may I add That, that that's, I think that answers my question.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to reserve the right to make a motion That's o that motion's

Could, could you tell me, uh, so I'm looking at line 37. Can you tell me the difference between an executive director and a director?

Thank you Mr. Speaker with the sponsor yield to just one more question, a follow up Representative MacPherson, will you yield to a follow up question?

Thurston. Okay, so in my time in the executive branch division director, there were lots and lots and lots and lots of those. Um, could you just explain why you think di division director, which is just a higher level manager, is high enough of a level to be a, a problem, and along with that, how you envision this fitting into the framework of Highway patrol?

Mr. Speaker, I, I just with withdraw that question while he is taking a minute to look that up so I can speak. Is that all right?

Hear you. Oh, sorry. I, if it's okay with the speaker, I would just withdraw that so we don't have to take time for him to just look things up. Thank you. Oh, That I'm still going to, okay.

See. So I, um, I would like to make the motion at this point to, um, amend on line 37, replace the words division director with the word commissioner.

So there, there's a lot of history to this. There's a lot of history about which, um, which executive branch employees can serve in the legislature. Um, historically, just historically we have said that if you are appointed by the governor, um, and so you're at that level, then you're not eligible to serve legislature and all other employees are. So in my experience working with executive branch agencies, division directors are just promoted. They're, they're managers that are promoted to a higher level. They're not typically at, at that higher level. Now, there are some exceptions to that. There are some divisions within DGO that are kind of higher level, but they're, it's just, it's just a title that's …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Actually, that's a great point. In my mind, I was thinking of the tax commissioners who are full-time employees, they go to work every day. They're at the highest level of the tax commission. Um, I don't think they're all cabinet members. I think that would make me nervous if they were to be also in the legislature. But now that you mention it, there are people who are on the, for example, transportation commission. And I think that might be a concern. Um, I wonder if there is a question here about full-time employee, if maybe that would be the answer is this, that it should be a executive director, director or commissioner who is …

Thank you Mr. Speaker Port. Tim, may I have permission to read a brief passage? Granted, The best tax is a neutral tax one that is broad enough to be low and simple enough to be invisible. By broadening the base, lowering the rate, and simplifying the tax calculation. We can stop the government from picking winners and losers and start letting the market work for everyone. So colleagues, um, about 30 plus years ago, we implemented a restaurant tax. And that's actually a bit of a misnomer. It's a food tax, it's a tax on a specific type of food prepared, made to order food. You pay that tax when you get a pizza from Little Caesar's, you pay …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Porter for the question. The hold harmless is actually quite simple because when we take 1% and reduce that off, this special type of food, we have to calculate a rate to apply to everything else, the broader base. And in that rate calculation, the tax commission won't let us go out to four decimal places to get it exactly right. They don't want to deal with four decimal places. They said we can only do with two. So when you only go to two decimal places, you round up every county will round up to the, to the nearest second decimal place, which means by definition, every county will get more money. And for example, …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker Pro Tim. Um, sometimes we think about tax increase, tax decrease, and we, we get all wrapped up around that one. There is no way to get this exactly revenue neutral. So we have erred on the side of revenue enhancing. Again, the total amount of new revenue collected or statewide would be roughly $6 million spread across the citizens. It's less than a candy bar per person. It's a tiny amount for us to try to dial it in that close. The more important thing to the counties was, is that they not lose money. So we have guaranteed that no county will lose money because of this, and in fact, because of the calculation …

Thank you. Colleagues. Um, I wanna say this in the most delicate way possible, but some of the comments that you've heard today reflect the misinformation that is circling around among county commissioners. I heard someone say this bill is bad because we depend on this for infrastructure. This bill does not change that this bill promotes and protects the ability of counties to bond for their infrastructure. Does not change that. I heard a colleague say this will decimate the tourism industry, decimate the tourism industry, and at the same time saying we're shifting the tax away from tourists. It makes no sense. Nothing about this bill has any potential to decimate the tourism industry. I heard another colleague …

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would just note that there is an amendment that needs to be adopted. That's when the time is right. Um,

Uh, I, I probably should just, uh, this amendment adds in language that was requested by USBE staff to make the bill complete. Uh, so it is important amendment.

Thank you Mr. Chair members, the committee. So this, um, particular topic has somewhat of a checkered past. There have been people who have tried to use bills to, um, change the board's rulemaking authority. And that is not my intent at all. So I wanna make make it absolutely clear that, that despite the fact that they may have been in bills in the past by whoever sponsors, that is not my intent today. Our intent today is simply, uh, I was working on a different version of this bill, and our alleged research pointed out to me that there's an inconsistency in the code. That part of the code in entitled 53 E has different language that doesn't …

Yeah, I don't have anything to add other than my presentation, so I appreciate the motion.

Again, wait minute. Veterinary amendments. Okay, that's kind of an interesting one for our, our committee. It is, it has to do with a veterinary training. So when a veterinarian completes their schooling, they have to do a six month internship, doppel, uh, in, in current code. And so Doppel had to decide how to incorporate that. And of course, they don't know how six months of work. What does that mean? Does that mean part-time, full-time, weekends, weekdays? What does that mean? If you're a doctor? Six months internship means something different. So they, doppel has incorporated a 1000 hour rule, which means statute and rule are inconsistent. And as I reviewed that with the veterinarians, a thousand hours …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Oh, wow. Gotta get that way closer. Uh, I'm going to, I've prepared my remarks very carefully to the current sub, but I will also point out that there is a second sub, which I would not oppose, but I think the points still here are helpful. So, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, this represents an opportunity to statewide repeal of the 1% surcharge on prepared food that is sold as ready to eat, commonly referred to as the restaurant tax. Although, as you will see, that's a really a bit of a misnomer. But before we want I get into that, I want to talk about how we got here. So over the summer …

Yes. So will you Speak to that later or I'll I'll go ahead and speak to that now that's that's a great question, Mr. Chair. So, uh, so in the world of worlds, I would repeal the tax and give the people of Utah a $95 million tax cut. That's, that would be my ideal in that, in that case, we'd need to adopt a amendment. But I understand that that causes a lot of heartburn, a lot of anxiety because that money is being spent on projects and programs that are out there. And those people might not like that. So the second sub sets us back to essentially the, the deal that I thought I had negotiated in …

Absolutely. So the, the first sub, which is the one before you has a, a hold harmless provision on bonding that they can continue to ta to receive the tax and collect the tax to pay off existing bonds. The second substitute basically has, has unlimited, they can con they can pay off their current bonds and they can actually issue new bonds in the second substitute, as I'm glad you mentioned that. So yes, uh, in, in the current version, there is a provision that allows them to pay off their bonds. And in the second substitute that is a fourth provision, which is that they can continue to bond against this revenue. We did not pull back on …

Absolutely. So the restaurant tax is a 1.0% tax on prepared food that is made to order. The proposed alternative funding source would allow this to be a revenue neutral or slightly enhanced revenue from the general sales tax, which tax pretty much everything except for grocery store food. So a, a can of beans at the supermarket would be that kind of thing would be the only thing that's exempted from that sales tax. And when you do that, broaden the base, lower the rate. First of all, nobody has to reprogram 'cause that's already in their system, second of all. So that, that decreases the complexity. But that on average would be about 0.1%. So it's a 10th …

you're taxing, instead of taxing restaurant food, you're taxing everything. You're taxing automobiles, you're taxing like new end used cars, you're taxing shoes, you're taxing clothing, you're taxing, uh, everything that pays a sales tax would be taxed at that much, much smaller rate.

Yes. So there was a study done by the Kimsey Gardner Institute, um, non-resident travelers pay only 19% of the restaurant tax 80, 81% tax. Uh, that was, and that's with old data. Um, beginning January 1st, 2026, that rate has been applied to new products, which are presumed to be largely resident based. So when you go to Macy's and buy an ice cream cone that's now taxed, it didn't used to be taxed. If you go to this, the there and there are other examples of that. So the prepared food within grocery stores, that tax rate got raised on them too. So, um, I I I think I'll just be feel comfortable saying at least 81% of …

Yeah, I'd be happy to do that. I think one of the public comment mentioned the, the, the fear of shifting from out of towners to locals. Um, so we collected data on that's also, you can figure it out from the Kemsey Gardner report. The maximum amount of the shift would probably be a couple of dollars per person per year. So think about that. We're talking about maybe a dollar, $2, two 50 per person per year is the, is the size of the shift. But what that ignores is the benefit to your local small businesses to the benefit to those business owners and their employees who are also being, again, it goes back to the scene …

Yeah. Um, I like the first substitute better, but in this spirit of, I will stick to the deal that I made even when the other guy doesn't stick to the deal that I thought he made. Uh, sub two is the deal that I thought we had. So I'm going to support the motion to adopt second substitute because I thought that's what we had agreed to. In fact, it's a little better than the deal we agreed to, but I'll talk later if I have to about that.

to favorably recommend second substitute. Yeah, so I appreciate the motion. Um, and I'm just gonna give my some comments now. I hopefully not need to do those again later. So as you heard from public comment, the only substantive opposition to a to second substitute is this theoretical. Um, that it then some counties it may shift from out of towners to locals. The reality is that the data shows that that's trivial at best. Uh, ignores the benefits entirely from, from getting rid of this complex and burdensome tax on the Loa on local small businesses. And then finally, um, it's even if we went down the road, you could theoretically justify it because most of the TRCC …

Thank you. I feel similar to the chair. I mean, I think that's a great thing. It's something that we need. Um, I'm also concerned about the, the involvement of GOO in providing incentives, incentives, incentives. We've, we've over incentivized too many things, and the result of that is higher housing prices. Let's just, just at the end of the day, I'm like, I, we just, I'm not, I'm not sure that I'm ready to, to go down that path.

I'm reading the third substitute. Um, uh, I understood that the purpose was to create another way of doing this. And it, it makes sense to me that if I was worried about my signature being matched or not matched or whatever, that this would create sort of like a fast cast approach to make sure that my ballot is counted, I show my ID and nobody has to check my signature off it goes. Uh, for those people who for whatever reason need to go to a Dropbox at 11:00 PM when there's nobody there, is that, would that still be an option under the third sub? Uh, so is there still an option to do dropping off a …

there have been some conversations about the state liquor store selling non-alcoholic spirits. Um, and so I'm wondering if that's something that has come up in your conversations, or if that's something that I could maybe bend somebody's ear and we can maybe talk about if that requires statutory authority, adding that to the list of things.

Yeah. Thank you. Members of the committee? Uh, this is a fairly straightforward bill, but it's meaningful. This bill formally defines Utah's State Protection Advocacy Agency, and it clarifies the, that agency's responsibility to advocate, to represent and advocate for all disabled individuals statewide, which is a cleanup of existing state language. It improves transparency and legislative oversight by requiring them to submit an annual written report to specific legislative interim committees, which describes the meetings they held, the services that provided the populations that serve and agencies they worked with. This bill will strengthen public engagement and accountability. They must hold at least three public meetings each year across the state to gather input, provide education, and share resources. …

Yeah. So under Federal code, the governor is required to choose one agency and designate them as the state's official representative for these activities. And so, since they have been chosen and been basically granted, uh, uh, a charter to be the state's representative agency, uh, it's reasonable for us to expect certain performance metrics from them. Uh, and so that's, that's where that comes from. 'cause we, we could change that at any time, but it was sort of nice to know that you're, that the agency is doing what you want it to do.

I don't, I believe it's all federally funded. If there is federally funded, I don't actually know. Okay. Like, I should probably not say that. 'cause I just don't know. Okay.

We'll bring it back to the sponsor. Yeah, so that's, that's a, that's a great thought. So on, uh, line 42, it's clear that the report may include, so it's nothing below is required. This just signals interest that these are things that, that they might include that we might be interested in as a legislature. And so if you are interested in these sorts of things and they have the data on those and want to report on those, I have no problem with those being reinstated. So, um, I, you know, there's of course the question, since they may, they may, may not, and they, they may or may not have data, but it just signals an intent …

So Representative Abbott is not wrong. Um, pre, previous to this bill, there has been no formal relationship with the legislature. And this bill corrects that issue that establishes what is that formal relationship. And the formal relationship is that we recognize that they have been, uh, designated that they are the State's Protection Agency, and that we would like to hear from them on a regular basis. And that is the full extent of the, of the relationship. There is no more, there is no less, but the legislature, if this bill passes, would in fact have a relationship with them. And it, and I think as was mentioned, it's probably a good thing that this not be off …

I appreciate that. I appreciate that. This is a private organization, but they're not really a private organization. They are a public organization. They're funded by the federal government. They're allowed to be funded by the federal government, by our state government. So our state government action allows them to be received millions of dollars from the federal government. Um, and so as the people's representatives here on Capitol Hill, I think we do have some interest and, and at least having some relationship with them and, and reading the bill, the relationship that we're asking for in this bill is minimal. We're just, we're recognizing them. We're saying, we know who you are and we would like to hear …

Thank you. I would like to move that we place this on the consent calendar. Uh, I'm sorry.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. For those of you that didn't have time to read this bill, I wanna just give you a moment. Okay, that's enough. So this bill, simply for, for students who have completed their veterinary training, they have to do an internship before they can get a license. The statute currently describes that internship as a six month internship, and we're simply changing that to 1000 hours. That makes it consistent with the current doppel practice and general understanding of what that internship actually is. With that, I would conclude my presentation. Mr. Speaker,

Yes, yes. Representative Thurston, I, I'm, I'm very sensitive to the fact of making sure that these mobile units are compensated fairly. So in your discussions with them, do you think that their costs of operation are higher or lower than the corresponding in-network facilities?

Yeah, so let me rephrase the question. So if you have a mobile mammography unit, there is a certain cost associated with that program, right? They, the program, they have the bus or whatever, they have the equipment and all the people and they gotta travel and there's a lot of cost to that. Or if you have a clinic, a brick and mortar store, they also have costs, they have to pay for their utility and their lights and the people and all of that stuff. So I'm just wondering if the mobile mammography unit is actually more expensive than the brick and mortar store,

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I, I think that's part of my question. My biggest concern is that, for example, if Huntsman Cancer has a mobile mammography unit, which we know they do and that they're asked to accept, 'cause the bill says that they have to accept it as the actual, the same payment that they would get for in-person, but they're losing money on the mobile mammography units and that those will go away over time. I wanna make sure that the insurance companies are not just short changing the mobile mammography, but I think looking at the bill the way that it's structured is certainly better than what we're getting today. And maybe over time we will find …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would like to move adoption of the second substitute. Thank

I would, so, uh, colleagues, you'll remember that we had house joint resolution 10, which allowed us to provide sponsor statements. Um, and that passed out of the house, had a successful committee hearings over in the Senate. It's being held in bill jail over there. So, uh, the solution is to take that and we'll just make it a house resolution. So we'll just make it, we'll do, we'll let the Senate figure out if they wanna do it later, but we'll go ahead and put that into this bill. And so it would be incorporated into this bill. And I've worked with the sponsor who had some concerns about that. So there is one modification regarding the placement. …

I would, so, uh, colleagues, you'll remember that we had house joint resolution 10, which allowed us to provide sponsor statements. Um, and that passed out of the house, had a successful committee hearings over in the Senate. It's being held in bill jail over there. So, uh, the solution is to take that and we'll just make it a house resolution. So we'll just make it, we'll do, we'll let the Senate figure out if they wanna do it later, but we'll go ahead and put that into this bill. And so it would be incorporated into this bill. And I've worked with the sponsor who had some concerns about that. So there is one modification regarding the placement. …

Yeah, so thank you colleagues. This, uh, you know, this is, again, this, these are not new things. They're things that we have considered before. And then the other part of this, the stricken language just makes that parallel between committee and house floor. So that you don't have to wonder like, oh, is this a committee thing or a house floor thing. It's the same no matter where you are. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Yeah, so thank you colleagues. This, uh, you know, this is, again, this, these are not new things. They're things that we have considered before. And then the other part of this, the stricken language just makes that parallel between committee and house floor. So that you don't have to wonder like, oh, is this a committee thing or a house floor thing. It's the same no matter where you are. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

I would. Um, I am looking at the section starting on line 4 61. I don't believe it does what the maker of the motion says it does. So I've been on the phone with the drafting attorneys to try to figure this out, and I don't think we're going to be able to come to an easy understanding of this anytime soon. And let me just explain what the question is. This says that a student shall be exempt from paying the non-resident portion of total tuition. In other words, they get to pay the in-state tuition unless they are a non-immigrant alien defined in US. Code section 1101, A 15, 11 0 1 A 15 does not define …

I would. Um, I am looking at the section starting on line 4 61. I don't believe it does what the maker of the motion says it does. So I've been on the phone with the drafting attorneys to try to figure this out, and I don't think we're going to be able to come to an easy understanding of this anytime soon. And let me just explain what the question is. This says that a student shall be exempt from paying the non-resident portion of total tuition. In other words, they get to pay the in-state tuition unless they are a non-immigrant alien defined in US. Code section 1101, A 15, 11 0 1 A 15 does not define …

Yes. So I had lengthy discussion while discussion was going with the drafting attorneys. It's not clear to me, it's not clear to them. I don't know. There is a reasonable chance, colleagues that this bill makes it easier for undocumented kids to get instate tuition because we don't know what it really does. There's a reasonable chance that it makes harder for undocumented kids to get in state tuition because we don't really know what it does. So if you're gonna vote on this, this bill, you better figure out if we're not gonna circle it, you better figure out for yourself whether you're voting to make it easier or harder for those kids. I don't know, is it …

Yes. So I had lengthy discussion while discussion was going with the drafting attorneys. It's not clear to me, it's not clear to them. I don't know. There is a reasonable chance, colleagues that this bill makes it easier for undocumented kids to get instate tuition because we don't know what it really does. There's a reasonable chance that it makes harder for undocumented kids to get in state tuition because we don't really know what it does. So if you're gonna vote on this, this bill, you better figure out if we're not gonna circle it, you better figure out for yourself whether you're voting to make it easier or harder for those kids. I don't know, is it …

Yeah, thank you, Andrew. Um, could you just comment briefly on the Rio Grande plan and if, does that fit into this? Is that just a pipe dream or would it be helpful? And what do you think about that?

Yes. I move that on line 8 67. We strike the word board and replace it with the word Commission. Okay. 8 8 76. 8 76. Sorry. Okay, the motion is on line 8 76 to strike the word board and replace it with commission.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I also want to echo Representative Fay's comments regarding the involvement of the employees. And, and hopefully the sponsor can address that in his summation as well. I, I do think that sometimes we create leadership structures or oversight structures that don't connect all the way to the people who have the great ideas for efficiency. And so maybe in your summation, if you, if you wouldn't mind just addressing that, um, how this, how you envision this involving the people on the front lines and their brilliance and their great ideas for being part of the organization as well. So that's my only comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Trying. Okay. Yeah, I, um, oh, she disappeared. All right. Yeah. I, I, I feel the same way that some of you have also said that, that when it comes to innovation, that our code often makes us too slow to respond. That there are opportunities for people to do things that they can be easily trained to do. And we've talked about, you know, modular credentials and all these other sorts of things. Uh, so, um, yeah, I, I'm definitely encouraged that, that we could have a way to move forward and to allow people to, to get into new technologies, new training, and figure it out as we move forward without being sort of locked in or provincial …

Thank you. So I wanna just clarify, the Utah Private Employer Verification Act is currently the law, and it would have been repealed only if the guest worker program was going to go into effect. So what your bill does is just says, we're going to continue doing what we've been doing with the Private Employer Verification Act. Nothing would, nobody would perceive any change in that, uh, that regard. Is that correct?

And that's my cue. No, I, I, I, I was not in the legislature when this was, bills were passed, but I was working in the governor's office, so I was very aware of the conversations at the time. Um, Utah had a much, much better solution. And all we needed was the federal waiver. That's all we need now. Like that as if that was just some sort of simple thing that they could just get out a piece of paper. Like if Obama had a phone in a pen, he could have just done it. Oh, wait, he did. And he could have and he didn't, which is very unfortunate for us. Um, because that was a, a …

Thank you. Since I have demonstrated extreme love to the banks all session, I would like to know why we don't just switch this around so that the entitlement holder has first place in line and the banks can be second. That's what I would love to do,

Oh, I see. So I, I I think it's, I that, that is the concern that, that I, that's A, that's a good answer by the, The way. So, yeah. And,

You. Mr. Chair, would it be possible to invite Mr. Steinle to come and tell us about the feasibility of making this move or the impact, or do we wanna do that in another point in the meeting?

Just, uh, if you could talk about the, the impact on the agency in terms of scale, scope, capability, capacity, those sorts of things.

Yeah, I, I, you know, I actually just, this, this speaks to something that's real important. We have regulatory agencies that specialize in regulation, department of Public Safety, specializes in public safety. And to me, it makes a ton of sense to allow the regulatory agency to regulate and the other agencies to perform their executive functions. And so, I'm, I'm kind of only half joking about, we've actually had conversations with the, the Supreme Court about contracting with Doppel to perform those legal, legal regulations for them. They, they do a fantastic job. They're efficient, they're cost effective, they know what they're doing, and they do a great job. And so, I'm, I'm encouraged that this probably will be …

Yeah, thank you. That also puts some more turf under my budget committee, so I'm always looking. There you go. For more turf. But by the way, we're, we're now even, we've both made motions to adjourn, so we're good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yeah. So in the Senate we discovered that there was an error in the definition of farm vehicles. We corrected that and we also had an amendment to correct the timing of the appropriations to more adequately, um, match the timing of the expenditures.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the second sub adopting the second substitute. It, um, for those of you who are aware, it, there were some very important conversations that happened and I appreciate the sponsor allowing me to be part of that. And, um, I would encourage us to do that. I, I think the second substitute gets us to a point where the law is clear as to how the various participants, the various executive branch agencies participate in the budgetary process. And it's very important that we have that clarity so that we all know what the rules are and there's no misunderstanding. So thank you Mr. Speaker. Adopt. I I encourage the adoption …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the second sub adopting the second substitute. It, um, for those of you who are aware, it, there were some very important conversations that happened and I appreciate the sponsor allowing me to be part of that. And, um, I would encourage us to do that. I, I think the second substitute gets us to a point where the law is clear as to how the various participants, the various executive branch agencies participate in the budgetary process. And it's very important that we have that clarity so that we all know what the rules are and there's no misunderstanding. So thank you Mr. Speaker. Adopt. I I encourage the adoption …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to reserve the right to make a motion, Mr. Speaker ProAm. Um, and then we'll also will the sponsor yield to a series of questions. Representative Pucci, will you yield to a series of questions?

So on line 67, the way I am reading this, it says that the, in order for a high school teacher, an LEA employee, to qualify they must have a master's degree or higher. Could you tell me, does that master's degree have to be in language or can it just be any master's degree?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker pro tem. So my second question is, if a teacher has demonstrated language proficiency of advanced high or higher, um, why does it matter that they have a master's degree if they're competent? In other words, if they're competent and they know what they're doing at a very high level, why does it matter what kind of schooling they Uintah?

So my final question, and Mr. Speaker pro tem, if I may, all concurrent enrollment teachers in Utah have to have a master's degree. Okay. So I'll just ask my last question then that, that maybe changed my thinking. But, um, would it, would it help in any way to just strike that language from line 67 holds a master's degree or higher? Would that make more teachers, more qualified teachers available so that more students could get more credit and more, more students could be prepared for further learning? Mr. Speaker ProAm,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. I, I, I will not make the motion that I had to reserve the right to make, but I think this calls attention to something that we are experiencing in our higher ed system, uh, credential creep. That we somehow believe that, um, what degree you got or how many hours you took is more important than your abilities. And I think that's preventing some very good teachers in our high schools from teaching students. Um, and for we're saying, look, if you want to, if you want to do this, you at your own expense have to go back. And sometimes the schools pay for it, but you have to go time, energy to …

Right. Thank you. So, regarding the unclaimed property, I see that there is a, a cash component to that. Um, would there be any reason why we wouldn't just have them turn the cash over to the state treasurer and let the state treasurer handle it from there on out? Um, I think that question is probably better for Salt Lake City Department of Airports who are here. Are they, Is there somebody that we can ask Mr. Chair That question? Come on up.

So the, may I ask a follow up question? Sure, go ahead. I dunno if we have time for this today, but You're fine. Alright.

So, so, and in the bill it talks about that, that if you are going to dispose of the cash, then that essentially means that you would use it for a public interest use. What is Salt Lake City's current policy? Where, where does that money go? What public interest are you giving it to? Right.

Yeah. And one last, if I may. Yeah, go ahead. So, um, there's also, I'm, there's, um, there are federal rules regarding unclaimed property that's left inside the TSA security area. Does, does this solve that problem or is that still a problem? Um, no, this, it's, it will operate the same. Um, we, we have been dealing with this, we just need the law to say that because we're not a law enforcement agency.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, I didn't see in here how this would apply if you're wanted to name a highway after someone who's not a person. So for example, we have the Grand Army of the Republic, we have Minuteman Highway, we have some of our highways that have been designated to recognize groups of people. Um, is that, is your intent that that would just still follow the legislative process? Or what, what are, what are, what, what, what do you think should happen in those cases?

I just pulled up the list that, that we currently have. And so I don't think my amendment will cover all these cases, but I think it covers most of them. Um, the I 15 is d is the Veterans Memorial Highway. So honors a group, veterans, the 10th Mountain Division, Memorial Highway Legacy Loop. I don't know what Legacy Loop is. Utah National Parks Highway, Dinosaur Diamond, prehistoric Highway, Ram Boulevard. I don't know how Ram Boulevard got in code. That's an interesting question. Is that In Lehi? I don't know. I'm gonna have to look that one up. That Would be Pioneer Boulevard. Yeah. Utah Fruit Way, purple Heart Trail again, purple Heart Trail. James V. Hanson, Mormon, …

Yeah. So it sounds like Mr. Chair, that that, that, maybe you're right, that this, if we don't do something like this, we're gonna have every high school mascot wanting us to have a state designated highway. And we don't want that. And

I might propose a, a, a substitute amendment that we renamed Ram Boulevard, Wildcat Boulevard in Monroe for reasons that many of you won't understand.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you refresh your screen, That's what I'm trying to refresh. I'll Amendment Tool Shop. I move the adoption of House Amendment two.

Yeah. Obviously it incorporates a really good part, which was an Amendment one. Um, but it also just, so, it just clarifies that the Honor can be either an individual who has all the criteria were previously outlined, or a group with significant ties to the state. Yeah. And otherwise, the process would be the same. And very, very good job, by the way, drafting people. Fantastic. It looks wonderful. They're pros. That's why they get paid the big bucks. Thank you to our staff who is so nimble. Appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we favorably recommend first substitute House Bill 4 91 as amended. That is an order discussion to that motion. Yeah. I, I mean, as it's gonna come a surprise to everybody. We have a lot of bills that are not really critical policy issues, but yet are important. And if we can find a way of handling those in a way that doesn't gum up the works, I think that you were referring to earlier, I, I'm all in favor of taking care of these important issues through administrative action. I, it's something that I think is a, it makes us more efficient as a legislature, and also increases public confidence and trust …

I would like to move, we adopt amendment one. I would actually like to move amendments one and two, but I probably, somebody will call point of order if I try to do that, so, Okay. One at a time. Okay.

uh, summation by the make a motion. Yeah, I think that's an important part of this. That's, that's part of the toolkit as the law enforcement officers. And this isn't, to me, this is shall that if, if you're gonna deal with somebody's kid, you need to let the parents know that you're dealing with their kids so that everybody's on the same page.

Yeah. So Amendment two, uh, then the chair's name removes, um, the liability, the, the criminal liability of a parent for their child's acts in this specific case.

Yeah, I, yeah. On this specific amendment, I, I do think, 'cause we have several bills that are out there. Representative Cutler's bill, the unlicensed driver bill, and there's other bills out there. I think for the sake of simplicity, it's better to pass amendment two. Sure. And let look to those other things for parental liability. And I think the sponsor mentioned, what I think is important is that you're, it's gonna be a hassle. You're gonna have to go down to get that thing outta impound. You're gonna, the kid, the 13 year old's not gonna pay the 50 bucks. Well, my kids would be made to pay it somehow later. But you're gonna have to go down, …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, a rise in support of this bill and I, I want my colleagues to understand why. 'cause it might seem counterintuitive first, but the reality is that for a young person, so this is not an adult, this is for a young person who is seeking can get a driver's license. There are three components of education. The first component is what we call the classroom or the workbook or whatever you wanna call that. It's the, it's the textbook part of learning how to drive. And that can be done in many ways. It can be done in a classroom, it can be done online, or there's actual, in some cases there used to …

Mr. Speaker ProAm, I just want to clarify what happens with retirement. Uh, so I did a, you know, obviously when I was a state employee for several years, so when I was here at the legislature, I was on unpaid unbenefited leave. Um, but as you all know, we don't get our health insurance just for part of the year. We get our health insurance year round. So, uh, I was on legislative health and from a retirement perspective, what happened was, for those seven weeks I was accruing service credit in URS under my legislative account, but did not accrue service credit under my state employee account. So I was still getting credit for it, it's just now …

Mr. Speaker ProAm, I just want to clarify what happens with retirement. Uh, so I did a, you know, obviously when I was a state employee for several years, so when I was here at the legislature, I was on unpaid unbenefited leave. Um, but as you all know, we don't get our health insurance just for part of the year. We get our health insurance year round. So, uh, I was on legislative health and from a retirement perspective, what happened was, for those seven weeks I was accruing service credit in URS under my legislative account, but did not accrue service credit under my state employee account. So I was still getting credit for it, it's just now …

So I just want to make sure that I am on the same page. So, um, one of my cities had contacted me and said, oh, this will cause us to raise our water rates by, I don't know, some number, like 500% or something like that. Could you address the, whether under the second sub, if that's the case at all?

So I just want to make sure that I am on the same page. So, um, one of my cities had contacted me and said, oh, this will cause us to raise our water rates by, I don't know, some number, like 500% or something like that. Could you address the, whether under the second sub, if that's the case at all?

Yeah, so think so just I I think then that, that, what that suggests to me is, is that there may, there is an increase for some cities, but it's not the draconian. Like, I'm not gonna pay $180 for my water, probably something like that. Correct? Yeah. And the second part of my question is then, um, if states, oh, so if a city does not need state funding for a project, they can just continue to charge their current rate indefinitely and just pretend like the bill doesn't affect them. Is that right, Mr. Speaker? Yeah.

Yeah, so think so just I I think then that, that, what that suggests to me is, is that there may, there is an increase for some cities, but it's not the draconian. Like, I'm not gonna pay $180 for my water, probably something like that. Correct? Yeah. And the second part of my question is then, um, if states, oh, so if a city does not need state funding for a project, they can just continue to charge their current rate indefinitely and just pretend like the bill doesn't affect them. Is that right, Mr. Speaker? Yeah.

Okay, so, so thank you Mr. Speaker. Sounds to me like then that, that, uh, cities can, and many do manage themselves appropriately. They plan for future needs. They plan for pumping station water treatment plans, infrastructure, and they charge water rates accordingly if they have water systems. Um, and some cities may find themselves in a bind and may need to come to the state for assistance. And then we would be asking them saying, are you doing everything that you can do on your own first and then we will help you. So you, you do what you can first and then we'll help you with the rest.

Okay, so, so thank you Mr. Speaker. Sounds to me like then that, that, uh, cities can, and many do manage themselves appropriately. They plan for future needs. They plan for pumping station water treatment plans, infrastructure, and they charge water rates accordingly if they have water systems. Um, and some cities may find themselves in a bind and may need to come to the state for assistance. And then we would be asking them saying, are you doing everything that you can do on your own first and then we will help you. So you, you do what you can first and then we'll help you with the rest.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I, I think this is a, a great, uh, opportunity to meet the city's part way and help, help them address needs. So I, I appreciate the sponsor for the second step. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I, I think this is a, a great, uh, opportunity to meet the city's part way and help, help them address needs. So I, I appreciate the sponsor for the second step. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, I'll be speaking to House Bill 3 94. The first sub, the first sub does one thing. It changes the term six months to 1000 hours, which is something we need to do for technical release reasons related to rules. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Mr. Chair? Yes. Oh, I move that we adopt first substitute house bill 3 94.

I think I have two questions if I may, Mr. Chair. So the first one is, um, so this 60 day provision would apply to not all types of lease arrangements. What types would it apply to and what types would it not apply to?

So if it was student housing, sorry, I'm gonna actually have three questions now. Sorry. Uh, so if it was student housing, it would, were there, there basically semester four month contracts, it would apply to those, but if it's month to month, it would not apply to those?

And then the other question is, um, I forgot. I'm good. It's not that important. You have a 60 day notice to come up with that question again. Alright, there we go. Chairman. A uh, quick question. Uh, so we're changing it to 60 days. What's the current policy now?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just, uh, uh, under what circumstance would a landlord not be able to notify? I, I'm like, I'm assuming that mom and pop means maybe they forgot or there's some sort of, uh, unintentional thing, but if, if everybody knows the rules, if this is the big boys, is there a circumstance under which they would not be able to comply with a 60 day requirement?

did we move to the next agenda? Sorry. That's why I turned off my light.

I, I'll just say this very briefly, uh, before Chair Malloy jumps over the, the DA there. No, I, I just wanna say that this, this committee hearing is a necessary first step, I think, for getting the conversation going. And there are, especially in the, the community where I teach, there have been many students who I've suddenly lost outta my classroom who have suddenly disappeared and gone off someplace else because they were not given notice enough of a, a rental increase. Not, not an eviction, but the, the fact that they're, they're not gonna be able to afford to live in the place where they're living right now. Uh, and, and I wanna make sure that we …

I would actually, uh, this is a difficult area. I mean, there, there are expectations on healthcare providers to do no harm. And so I'm more concerned about that one, that if somebody, part of their job has to end somebody's life, that's concerning. And I also like the idea that on the other side, if they say, look, I don't, I can't do this. I have a moral objection or a, some other issue, I, they don't, they shouldn't have to do it either at the, at the peril of their license. Maybe that's a job issue or with their employer, but at least in terms of their license, it's not a license issue. So I would encourage to …

Are you familiar with, uh, super K extract strong? I am. Um, what is the standard recommended whatever amount that a person should take of that?

Okay. So would it surprise you to know that that looks an awful lot like a, uh, 24 hour energy shot and people might be drinking the whole bottle all at once?

Okay. So, so you think it's not safe to take more than 150 milligrams in a 24 hour period?

You. Um, just tell me, can you tell me a little bit more about what it means to be patient advocate? Is that a paid position? Do

I would briefly. I, I actually think the third substitute is, um, not, it's less than I want, but I understand that the senator has to get what he can get. So, um, just so people know that I would actually prefer a stronger bill than the third substitute, but I think the third substitute puts us on a path in the right direction to be able to provide some balance between some access and some regulation. So with that, I appreciate the adoption of the third sub.

I would like to, uh, starting on line one 50, strike from the word and all the way through the line of 1 57.

I would like to, uh, starting on line one 50, strike from the word and all the way through the line of 1 57. You count it. How many words that is Representative Thurston? Um, I believe that sends it. Strike out. It doesn't matter, but I don't, I haven't counted. No,

Okay, so, uh, explain that again. So line one 50, starting at and, and delete it all the way through and including line 1 57. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay.

So line one 50, starting at and, and delete it all the way through and including line 1 57. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay.

Yeah. So colleagues, um, a few years ago it became, uh, de to ask for commemorative days and periods. And we had a lot of bills, a lot of opportunities, and some of them are good, some of'em I liked. Some of 'em were good and I didn't like some of 'em were bad and I liked, and some weren't bad and I didn't like, there were all sorts of things coming along our way. Um, and so we were asked as a government operations committee to take a look at a way of cutting down on that list. And the agreement was that we would allow the governor's office to have control of designating commemorative periods. And so, if …

Yeah. So colleagues, um, a few years ago it became, uh, de to ask for commemorative days and periods. And we had a lot of bills, a lot of opportunities, and some of them are good, some of'em I liked. Some of 'em were good and I didn't like some of 'em were bad and I liked, and some weren't bad and I didn't like, there were all sorts of things coming along our way. Um, and so we were asked as a government operations committee to take a look at a way of cutting down on that list. And the agreement was that we would allow the governor's office to have control of designating commemorative periods. And so, if …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, and apologies for not being able to read every bill and keep up on it. I, that's, it's a, a challenge around here. Uh, I would encourage this to be a team sport, and if anybody else is watching for these, please, uh, also take it upon yourself to contact any of the sponsors as well. And I soon, your apologies for having to do it this way. And I do apologize to my good friend. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, and apologies for not being able to read every bill and keep up on it. I, that's, it's a, a challenge around here. Uh, I would encourage this to be a team sport, and if anybody else is watching for these, please, uh, also take it upon yourself to contact any of the sponsors as well. And I soon, your apologies for having to do it this way. And I do apologize to my good friend. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I have a handout if that would be okay to circulate that

It sure is. Okay. So, um, those of you who were here last year, remember we had this discussion about allowing, uh, sponsors to create a PDF that could be included on the website near the bill. Um, there were some fantastic suggestions in the Senate rules committee and then we also had a discussion in legislative policy committee over the summer. And then I've got even more suggestions back. So this incorporates all of those comments and suggestions and gets us to the point where we are today. Just as a reminder is where did this idea come from? The idea came from the fact that many times I will have a constituent or a colleague say, what does …

Yeah, so for the first question, um, and I think Senator Fillmore will appreciate this. Representative Dunnigan is not a fan of this particular thing. Um, I had another house resolution and they were together on the board and some people in the house when they saw Dunnigan oppose this one, they thought that we were talking about the other one, which actually had been, his concerns had been addressed. And namely the speaker and the majority leader. So the voting called, like say, well, Dunnigan told us that there's a bill coming up that we should vote against. And I said, it's not this one. You're voting no on the wrong. And he said, oh, okay. But the concerns …

No, I, I actually don't, don't think that's necessary because the, the, the content of the bill is the sponsor's speech, right? So when I drafted this bill, this represents my speech. So I'm speaking as a legislator, this is what I want to have changed in a, in a legislature. And if somebody else wants to propose a substitute bill, then they can propose a substitute bill and that can be their speech, right? That would be, that would be their prerogative. But there's no reason why we have to allow in rule by any, I I think, I think you're making more of a moral or an ethical question about should we be fair and allow others. And …

Yeah. So I, I have had a moment to think about this question about alternative points to that is in fact, on that Bill's website, if you go to the Bill's webpage and you go hearings and debate and votes, you can hear anybody from the legislature who has given an alternative point of view, they have an opportunity to speak on the floor, they have an opportunity to speak in committee, and those recordings are readily available. So the alternative point of view is in fact available, uh, as well. And somebody had already mentioned that if they happen to have brought a handout to committee, that committee handout is there as well. So I think that's, that, having …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It's good to be with you as always. Uh, this bill is, um, the Department of Government Operations Cleanup bill, if you will. There were just a few things that were, have been pending out there since the, uh, merger when they brought DTS Finance, DHRM, all of those sort of divisions or our departments are now divisions of Department of Government Operations, and there are some things related to that that needed to just be cleaned up in the last little bit. The other part of this is cleaning up the titles. I guess the governor wants to grant titles of Duke and Prince, but couldn't …

Yes. So we currently have a mix of commissioners and executive directors. And so if you are the executive director of whatever, uh, you would now be called a commissioner. So Carlos would now be commissioner instead of Carlos.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I just wanna make sure that I'm clear on this. So this does not increase any taxes or fees. This allocates existing revenue sources to this special fund. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The sponsor. Um, I was, when I came in here, I was, I had a real concern about taking money outta the firefighters fund to fund highway patrol. As you mentioned, it's just not clean. Maybe it's a good idea, but it's just not clean. And so I really do appreciate the fact that you were able to work out this fourth sub so that we are funding highway patrol from the general fund, which where we should be firefighter, cancer from the firefighter fund, which where we should be. And I very appreciative of this fourth sub for doing that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm, will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Will The sponsor yield to a series of questions?

Uh, so my first question is, um, conflict of interest usually, uh, in the world that I live in, a conflict of interest means that my action as a legislator might benefit me personally, financially, or a member of my family in some way. Um, could you explain how, um, tax liens and criminal records are conflicts of interest,

Uh, so my first question is, um, conflict of interest usually, uh, in the world that I live in, a conflict of interest means that my action as a legislator might benefit me personally, financially, or a member of my family in some way. Um, could you explain how, um, tax liens and criminal records are conflicts of interest,

Um, my second question is, it would seem to me that the things that you're asking to be disclosed are already matters of public record. Is there a circumstance in which they wouldn't be matters of public record?

Um, my second question is, it would seem to me that the things that you're asking to be disclosed are already matters of public record. Is there a circumstance in which they wouldn't be matters of public record?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. My last question is, um, does the fact that somebody has a tax lien inherently signal something bad about them? A moral failure or lack of judgment or something like that is, is a tax lien necessarily mean a black mark against them?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. My last question is, um, does the fact that somebody has a tax lien inherently signal something bad about them? A moral failure or lack of judgment or something like that is, is a tax lien necessarily mean a black mark against them?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, I have a lot of pause about this bill because I, I think we're conflating a lot of things. We're conflating conflict of interest, which is inherent to the nature of our business with potentially requiring people to disclose prejudicial information, information that may be misinterpreted or misused by, um, campaigns against each other and, and claiming, oh, this person's not a fit candidate because they have an unresolved tax lien that's not even their fault. Or that they had a criminal record 30 years ago or 40 years ago. And assuming that there are some, I think the things that we're being asked to disclose in this bill, first of all, could also be …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, I have a lot of pause about this bill because I, I think we're conflating a lot of things. We're conflating conflict of interest, which is inherent to the nature of our business with potentially requiring people to disclose prejudicial information, information that may be misinterpreted or misused by, um, campaigns against each other and, and claiming, oh, this person's not a fit candidate because they have an unresolved tax lien that's not even their fault. Or that they had a criminal record 30 years ago or 40 years ago. And assuming that there are some, I think the things that we're being asked to disclose in this bill, first of all, could also be …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? The Sponsor yield to a series of questions?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? The Sponsor yield to a series of questions?

Yeah, I just wanna make sure. Um, so in the current version, not the proposed version around 3 0 9 3 42, somewhere there, there's a lot of little details that could make things burdensome on schools. And it kind of feels like that we're saying, well, you can decide whatever you want for your school. Uh, but we have this target of having recess before lunch and you need to kinda get there. So is is that issue been addressed in the proposed substitute?

Yeah, I just wanna make sure. Um, so in the current version, not the proposed version around 3 0 9 3 42, somewhere there, there's a lot of little details that could make things burdensome on schools. And it kind of feels like that we're saying, well, you can decide whatever you want for your school. Uh, but we have this target of having recess before lunch and you need to kinda get there. So is is that issue been addressed in the proposed substitute?

Thank you Then. So with that, with those changes, um, do you believe that addresses the concerns of U-S-B-A-I?

Thank you Then. So with that, with those changes, um, do you believe that addresses the concerns of U-S-B-A-I?

Okay. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would encourage adoption of the second sub. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would encourage adoption of the second sub. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, uh, colleagues, we are the legislative branch. We pass laws and occasionally as my colleague from Utah County has mentioned, we give people rulemaking authority. Um, when we give people rulemaking authority, we are giving them the ability to act as, as a, an agent of the legislative branch. We're allowing them to make laws too, and we should be very careful with that power that we give to the Executive branch to do that sort of thing. So, um, when it comes to the State Board of Education, they are an executive branch agency. They do not have inherent or constitutional powers to make laws or to make rules or to pass laws or …

So thank you Mr. Speaker Pro tem. So I think the Constitution and our current statute is very clear. There's case law that the State Board of Education is exclusively an executive branch. They're not like a county commission where they have potentially a dual role of being executive and legislative. They are like the Attorney general, the state treasurer of state auditor, the governor. They are only the executive branch. They do not have inherent powers to make binding laws, um, on their own authority. Thank,

Thank you, Mr. Speaker ProAm. Uh, so under this bill, they would be able to make rules that are necessary to implement the requirements of a statute. So, and that would include the appropriation. So if we have appropriated for them to receive and spend federal funds and they needed to make rules to do that, that would be included under that. So, um, yes.

Uh, so I think the implication here as required by statute, if you go back to read 60 3G chapter three, and I wouldn't expect anyone to read that whole thing, but if you do read that, it's the Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act. We clarify for all executive branch agencies what are the terms, conditions, limitations, et cetera, circumstances when they can make rules. And so this just clarifies that those abilities of the state board are just the same as every other executive branch agency, that there is no extra special powers just because they're a state board of education, they don't be, they don't have the opportunity to act outside of the legislative framework.

There's case law that has, there's, there's actually been case on this exact point as to what does that mean? And the courts have said that that is as determined by the legislature. So we decide what their domain is, we decide what their authorities are, and we decide what rulemaking authority they have.

You, Mr. Speaker Pro Tim. So Article 10, section one clearly states that the legislature is responsible for providing for the establishment and maintenance of the state's education system. That's our role. Section three mentions that the general control and supervision of that system is vested in the state board of education. That's the executive branch. So under that authority, which has been confirmed by the courts to be executive branch authority, they do not have the ability to create binding law on their own authority only we have the authority to create binding law. We can delegate that authority to the board and give them rulemaking process. And that system is outlined in Title 60 3G, chapter three. But …

Just following up on that answer to her question, um, what types of things, how, how do you imagine that there, what types of things would you actually have the bandwidth and the skillset to respond to versus what types of things could just gum up the works and cause confusion?

Yeah. So if I may, Mr. Chair, so if, if a cosmetologist has a concern about the way cosmetologists are regulated, that likely you said would be a doppel concern. Maybe it's, maybe it's a problem with the way the rules are crafted. So why wouldn't they just go to Doppel and work with the cosmetology board? Why would they be coming to you saying, I need you to provide to me a recommendation to repeal or modify an occupational regulation and not go to Mark Steinle and say, mark, what the heck? This doesn't make any sense. Could you get the board to fix this? Try to answer that, and then Yeah, other folks do the Same. Yeah, they …

Yeah. And this isn't an invitation for, for that at all. That's, I mean, they're not, they're not doing that for doppel necessarily. Well, I mean, that's what the short title says to make a recommendation to repeal and modify an occupational regulation for an individual. So allows an individual to petition in the office to make a recommendation to repeal and modify an occupational regulation. Some worker out there is miffed about an occupation regulation, and they're going to go to Opular and say, Hey, could you give me the backing that I need to get someone else to make the change? I, my concern is, is that if this is an invitation at the individual level to complain …

You might need a dynamic fiscal note. Do you Do those? We have worked with them carefully to make sure there's not one.

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

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

So does this substitute make it, uh, more comfortable for the insurance carriers who are nervous about this whole operations bill?

So does this substitute make it, uh, more comfortable for the insurance carriers who are nervous about this whole operations bill?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to give you a very short math and econ lesson 'cause I know that's why you came today. Um, so think about this. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with out of state or remote or whatever. Suppose that you have a market, a count county where there's five contractors that could bid on a government project. Those five will have different cost structures. Some of them have more overhead, some of 'em have more labor. They have different structures by setting a minimum wage only on the labor component. What you're saying is that if a company has high overhead, but low weight labor, they can't compete. So you're preferencing companies that …

So, um, could you just help me understand what exactly would be in this hour of training or continuing education that these guys are gonna take?

So, um, could you just help me understand what exactly would be in this hour of training or continuing education that these guys are gonna take?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor also tell me, um, should these people already not know that?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor also tell me, um, should these people already not know that?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I do appreciate those thoughtful answers to my questions. Um, I, I think I can be in mild support for this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I do appreciate those thoughtful answers to my questions. Um, I, I think I can be in mild support for this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My concerns are similar to my colleague from Bountiful. Um, we have a board of professionals. The treasurer himself is a professional, and when we say you must invest this, maybe today, it's, it's an appropriate tool to hedge against inflation. I don't know. I'm not a professional in that area, but when we put something in statute, it limits their flexibility to adjust. If markets take off one direction or the other, if things head south, if things head north, we need those to not have to wait for us to come back and say, oh, you know, actually we want you to invest differently. So I prefer to give the flexibility to those who …

You're On. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh, there are a couple of different responses. So the, one of the most important parts of this bill is the advisory group. They can actually have input as to where should the, where are. So they have such a diverse range of skills that they should be able to have input in saying, these are the places that we think OIG should be prioritizing. And noting that there are a lot of people that should catch mistakes. You know, obviously the frontline workers should catch a mistake, their supervisors catch a mistake. Uh, leadership at Department of Health and Human Services should catch mistakes. State auditor, O-A-O-I-G, there's a lot of people …

If I may, Mr. Chair? Yeah, go ahead. So, um, within the Department of Health and Human Services, there is an internal audit team. So they are already, and they are embedded within the department. The office of the Inspector General is removed from that department. They're housed in a separate department. So they have one step removal there. Currently, they have independent authority, so they're not subject to anybody, which is actually part of the problem we're trying to solve is that there's no guidance, there's no oversight. So they would have that in independent authority. And so we want to keep that the state auditor is one step further removed, still in the executive branch, but is now …

Can I ask a follow up? Pardon me? Yeah, go ahead. Okay. So, um, and there are some cases where we have roads that are quote unquote private roads, but there's a public access easement that's been established. Does this cover those as well, or is that a still a separate problem?

Remember that one. One more if I may. Mr. Sand Senator Sandall, I think it was. Yeah. Oh, that's right. That is who it was. Yep. Okay. Just one more follow up. Is that right? Sure. Okay. So you mentioned for, for public. So I can imagine that there's a road that leads to hunting areas or whatever, but there are also these private roads that lead to, um, privately owned lands, and so this covers those as well.

Uh, Hey Hillary. Hey, representative. Um, so have you, has, have, has your department looked at this in terms of, did, did you have any concerns about a parent's ability to conduct that six hours of in-car training if they're, if they're given the proper guidelines as to what's to be covered?

Are we gonna, no, sorry. Oh, okay. Back too early. You like, you like the amendment. I like this amendment. And then we should do something else.

Yeah, I would. Um, I've been all over in my mind on this particular issue, and it really, it comes down to just one thing, which is the six hours of training. There's no question that the online module for the 30 hours, a lot of driving schools don't have an instructor teach that. It's just an online module. That's fine. State board provides that the 40 hours, what whatever your parents do, and whatever they sign, say they did, and sign off, that's already in place. So it really comes down to that six hours. Uh, and I've talked to a fair number of kids and parents recently about this. Most parents I know would not want to do …

I wanna just thank the committee for their interest and time in this. I, when I first saw it on the agenda, I thought this would be about a, a five minute discussion would be done. Here we are two meetings later, and we've spent, I think we've spent more time on this bill and this committee than any other bill. Uh, and that, I think that just should let the public know that we're not, we're not ignoring you, we're listening to you, but we're listening to everybody. And we're trying to come up with something that is the best answer for the people who need, uh, the government to come to their aid. And I, I think we're, …

Uh, Representative Thurston. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we set a time to adjourn at 6:00 PM

Yeah. So Executive appropriations committee is coming here right after us. And I just wanna be fair to our audience and to everybody that's participating to know that we will have to end at six o'clock.

Thank you. So would this apply to a sport like a 60,000 foot, uh, seat football stadium that has concession stands all throughout the stadium?

That answers my question. I don't know if it helps, but it answers my question.

So if the government required you to accept gold and silver coins, would that make you feel better With the price of gold? Right

You get it. Decide it's, it is my choice. Okay. Thank you. But it does seem like discrimination if they won't take cash. 'cause it even says right on the bills that this is legal tender for all debts owed. Does It seem like discrimination that you won't take cards?

Thank you. So, when Bank of Utah refuses to act as a trustee for a trust, who do you recommend they go to, Uh, another financial institution? What, what if, what if no financial institution will take the case? Uh, as mentioned previously, family members, uh, have the ability to, to act as trustee as well. So you would rather have my brother who's a truck driver than Anthony, who's an attorney, run my family's trust.

Alright. I can't get my light off. Sorry. It's just one motion. So we, we have a, a motion and then a substitute motion. Oh, you're right. You're correct. Yeah. Back Representative chairman Lay, I, I would, uh, not support the motion. I think, uh, there's a lot of work that needs to be done and I think, uh, when I sum, I will make some comments, but I, that's, that's where I'm at.

I absolutely would. So this has been a study for the conversation currently in the law. CPAs and attorneys can do this occasionally. It's not well defined. Nobody knows what it means. They don't have to have bonding, they don't have to have regulation. DFI doesn't have have to get involved. They can just do it. The bill clarifies, it makes it more clear as to what occasionally means. It means that you can do it when you're asked. You can't advertise, you can't build a business out of it. It's what it means. You still don't have to have any newer requirements. And furthermore, I'm just really disappointed with the banks because I don't think that they've told you …

I apologize. I may have been a little bit harsh on the banks, but I have very sensitive feelings on this issue, so I apologize if I may have gone too hard on them. But, uh, I do feel like this is, this is something that we've talked about and from the very first moment we've just tried to figure out how to clarify what occasionally means. CPAs and attorneys can already do this. We just want to clarify what occasionally means. And I think the bill puts us in that right box. I think it moves us in a step in the right direction. Will we need to do more later? Probably. But at least it, it clarifies to …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Thompson, will you yield to a series of questions? No Answer is, no Representative Thurston. That's just fine. I'll answer my own questions. Uh, you would've been wise to answer my questions, but I'll do it for you. So I'm looking at the dynamic fiscal note colleagues. This is unusual. LFA tells us that they can't do a dynamic fiscal note, but they did. So here, let's take a look at this. For our $3 million investment in the minimal scenario, we're getting $36,000 of return on investment. If it, in the high estimate, we're only getting $180,000, you have to look at the difference between …

Thank you Mr. Chair. So I wanna make sure I understand the status quo. So currently the materials are available to parents who want to use them to teach their kids to drive. Is that correct?

So if a parent today someone went and obtained the materials, taught their kids how to drive, however they did that, they got them all done, they went down to DLD. What would DLD say if, like, if you for example, showed up with a 16-year-old and said, I've I've completed all the materials, I've taught them how to drive and here they are to be tested. I would like you to evaluate them. What would DLD say today?

Okay. So one more if I may, Mr. Chair. So in your opinion, do you think it would be legal for a parent to tell DLDI, I've got this child, I'm gonna teach them how to drive, get the materials? Is that something that, that the DLD would say? Yeah, go ahead. That's fine. Or would they say, Hmm, we're not sure about that?

Was asking about before, if the bill doesn't pass, what, what they would they just tell you, sorry, this kid has not met the requirements and we're not gonna test them or

I have a question for RA if I may. Go ahead. So, um, on every motor vehicle registration rule, there's a $2 and 50 cent driver education fee that is collected and given to the State Board of Education. Can you just tell us what that money is used for?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'm just kind of curious if anybody knows, is, is drivers that available through any of our online high school programs and maybe Audra is saying yes. Could you just speak to that briefly? Audra, How, how does that work for online high school?

Thank you. I I'm like the chair. I'm, I'm trying to parse out what is the important part of this. So as I understand it, parents today can do online home study for the classroom instruction part. The part of the experience that is in the car with a professional teaching you is is three hours and then there are observation hours, there's three hours of observation during that part, and then there's the 40 hours with your parents. So which, which part of that do you think is making the difference of those of those areas?

Or? Yeah. Yeah. You're the only one. You're the only one that has the mic. So

But the only time that they're on the road with a professional is the three hours when they're being observed by the professional. 'cause it's a six hour total, three hours of driving at three hours of observation.

For drivers. I'm not, I'm not asking you ma'am. I'm sorry. Um, so that's, that's, that's my question. Thank you.

Thank you. So I, wow. Okay. So there are a lot of things that are not clear in my mind. Um, so there is a 30 hour instructional component. I have no reason to believe that a parent can't teach it. There are online modules that don't even involve an instructor. You can get it through online high school. There are, there are plenty of ways that those materials could be available to a parent to teach their child for free the workbook or classroom. I mean, I've looked online, people call it different things, but one company proudly says that this is a workbook exercise. It should take you no longer than 30 hours to complete and pass the …

Thank you. If this turn, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, members of the committee. So I will be speaking to the first substitute of the bill. So hopefully you all didn't spend too much energy looking at the full bill and wondering what is he trying to do. 'cause all we need to really look at is the first substitute of the bill. So, um, state, state statute currently allows the state board, by the way, the state board is an independently elected executive branch, just like the governor. So if you think about this, um, the board, they have the same level of authority as the governor. And statute currently allows the state board to make rules …

Thank Mr. Chair for this will be either for the sponsor or for his guest. Um, is, is there any reason why municipalities or local governments couldn't do this today if they wanted to? Does state law prohibit this type of an arrangement if the count or the cities wanna do it voluntarily?

But that's not my, that's Not my Question prohibiting. Sorry ma'am. That's not my question. My question is, do the cities have the power to do this voluntarily without us mandating it to be a statewide?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, I'm trying to reconcile in my mind, so if I'm gonna do a do it yourself project and I got down, I got the building permit, everything ready to go. Um, and then I am needed to get it inspected. It wouldn't make sense to me that the person that helped me on the front end with all the design and all that stuff should also be the one on the backend approving that. And then I just have to get a yet another party involved. And how are, how are they gonna, how is this gonna save anybody any time? This is all about getting stuff done faster.

But is it, how is this faster? Because this is all, this has all been about delays and getting stuff done faster. So how is this

So the answer is that you're hiring less lower skilled people to take the place of higher skilled people. And that's how you're making up the speed?

As skilled or higher. Yes. So how, like, I still don't understand how this is faster

Thank you. Um, so keep It short, please. Yes. You, you said that that that homeowners are, are suffering months long delays for routine inspections. Do you have any specific cases of cities that are causing months long delays for routine inspections that you could provide to us?

Thank you. I'd just like to add to Representative Peterson's comment that I would really like to see, I mean, the cities can do this. They don't need us to tell all cities, you all have to do this way. In fact, I'm generally not a fan of telling all cities everywhere you have to do things the same way. But, uh, I would like to see a city step up and say, we'll, we'll give this a try. We'll give it a try. We'll, we'll see if it makes a difference, if it makes life better. And if multiple cities wanna step up and give it a try, be even more happy. 'cause then we can really see if …

I would like to speak to that. Um, like a TR said, I'm all in favor of increasing our reputation for being, uh, lower government regulation, especially on taxes. So I appreciate the Senator for bringing the bill.

You Mr. Speaker. This bill has two parts, both of which are relatively minor cleanups. The first part has to do with the Department of Government operations when we consolidated the Department of Government Operations, all those different components, D-T-S-D-H-R-M, et cetera, et cetera. There were some things that got left out and those are being cleaned up in the bill. And then the other part of this is that the governor has asked to be able to grant titles to all of his gubernatorial appointees. He would like to refer them to them as informally as commissioners. And that's what the bill does. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this is all part of a larger conversation and so I wanna be careful to say this correctly. We, we need to make sure that we are not thinking about these policies in isolation of other things that are going on. Uh, and so I, I would, um, favor the position of the chief sponsor and so keep, keep the bill clean, keep it what she needs it to be so that it can be part of a larger conversation moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this is all part of a larger conversation and so I wanna be careful to say this correctly. We, we need to make sure that we are not thinking about these policies in isolation of other things that are going on. Uh, and so I, I would, um, favor the position of the chief sponsor and so keep, keep the bill clean, keep it what she needs it to be so that it can be part of a larger conversation moving forward. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, my concern with this bill, as the sponsor indicated in his presentation that the only purpose of this bill is to let water resources know that we're interested. And, um, as you have heard the governor mention many times, if it's a something that could be handled with a phone call, he'd rather not us run a bill to handle something that he could have been handled with a phone call. I have actually personally taken him up on that several times and have found the executive branch to be very engaging and willing to provide information to conduct studies, to resolve issues, uh, without running a bill, which is part of the reason why …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, one of the things about the current version of the bill is the destination of the funds. The funds are placed in the transportation fund, and the reason for that is because of our state constitution. So our state constitution, and if you haven't read it lately, I highly recommend it's a good thing. Um, talks about when we collect taxes or fees on motor vehicles, there are very specific uses in our state constitution for that money to be used. And the Transportation Fund is typically the place where we place those funds to be used for general purposes. So, um, just want to make sure that my colleagues are aware, just in case …

Question? I Yes, a question. I actually two questions. Uh, so the first question is, can you just explain to us how it is that you are able to sell the same quality part at a lower price? Is it just monopoly that Mopar is charging more or is it just that you have a way of producing it cheaper? Or how, how is it, how are you able to sell it for less?

Well, can, can we just say that the OEM people are upcharging? Is that fair?

Yeah. I will tell you, I used to work for Smuckers. Mm-hmm. We produced Smucker's brand Strawberry Jam, and we produced store brand SM right. Strawberry Jam. Uh, but my other question if I may, Mr. Chair, is there's been a question about supply chain. So if, if we are going to make a move that says more of these cars have to be fixed using OEM parts, is the supply chain sufficient to even deliver that number of parts? Would, would cars be waiting for weeks or possibly months waiting for the parts to come in?

So I, I still have a problem in lines 2 63 to 2 65. I don't know how an insurer is going to ensure that anything actually works. I mean, that's, that's a manufacturer thing they can say, in fact, they can't even ensure that OEM parts are going to work. Right? They can't, they can't, they can't ensure that if they put a genuine factory part in there, that it is going to have the equivalent quality fix, whatever. It, it, they just don't know. And so, I, I don't know how in theory that is actually going to work because it's, it is a problem for these stuff.

Thank, I'd like to speak in favor of this. We have a UTA project in my district, and those people are getting hosed, and I mean, they're getting treated really well, but when it comes right down to it, at the end of the day, UTA can only do what they can do. And they're, they're awesome. They're trying to U dot UTA, they're doing everything they can, but at the end of the day, there's, it's just not, the, the amount of compensation's available is just not enough to make it work for everybody. So I, I'm, yeah, I think it's time that we catch up. All right. Apologize for saying hosed in committee twice. All right. It's a …

Thank you. If I've got this sequence right, there's a substitute and then an amendment. So I move that we adopt the first substitute, The if your light's on your, it's to adopt the, okay. The, the, the motion is that we adopt the first substitute, uh, to house bill three 13.

So I move that we adopt the amendment. Okay. The mo we move the motion is that we adopt house amendment one.

Yeah, I would. I I do appreciate everyone's comments. Um, and I understand there are some concerns, but at the end of the day, uh, we're talking about a, an opportunity for people in our state to be able to gain skills and to be able to help people. And so, why overcomplicate it? Why make it so burdensome? I read through this, I talked with the sponsor. I think this is a fair compromise. I I do have one change that I would like to make. So if this is adopted, I have an amendment. But in general, I, I'm, I've come a long way on this topic, and I, I think this is a reasonable way of dealing …

Yeah, just so that the committee, in case you can't see what it does, it, it replaces the word East Asian with the word relevant. Uh, so in describing medical theory, not everybody who, uh, is practicing acupuncture is interested in traditional Chinese medicine. That may not be relevant to everybody, but medical theory is important. So this would allow the student and the school to agree on what type of medical theory is appropriate, whether that's West, western tradition, Chinese medicine, or something else. And so that simple change would, um, create more options for more opportunity for people.

I think, uh, I think collectively have already understand exactly what we're trying to do here. So I, I'll waive anything further comes,

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, yes, absolutely. So, opular has had done a, in 2025 LER did a periodic review of acupuncture. Uh, and so they shared that report with me, uh, and I have reviewed that very carefully. Um, and I feel like that the, the provisions in this bill are consistent with opal's recommendations. They don't have a position of support or oppose on the bill, but they did provide the, the re the report to help guide this along. The, the, the most important part to me of the report is that acupuncture, relative to all healthcare proficient, is on the extremely safe end. I mean, as with anything, something could go wrong, but, uh, the, the …

I will. Uh, so let me talk about this in the two parts. So the existing bill, I'll talk about first and then I'll talk about what we would like to add in the substitute. So the, the main part of the bill that's before you today, um, is to correct vestiges of shadows of things that never really got squared away back when all of these agencies got combined in the Department of Government operations. Um, the reality is it has worked so well that all of these ideas that some of them have independent authority, they're not really part of the department. They kind of are, but they're kind of not. We're ready for that to just go …

It's free. We have the fiscal note just, just got to my attention and it is free. Um, because it basically is the governor referring to them as commissioners at the governor's will and pleasure. And I don't know that any, well maybe everyone else has to bow and say Commissioner too, but it's not really clear. And Mike Mauer is here to answer questions about the impact of that. If you have any, we've got him right behind us. So with that, and given the pressing time, maybe we'll just call it good for the presentation and, and punt us all to committee questions.

The, the, our primary goal is to make sure they have a consistent title. It, um, we now have

Just I have the best advice chair of all the appropriations committees, so thank you. He's, he's great. Alright. The committee.

Ms. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I'm going to oppose this motion, the alternate packet. It would definitely negatively impact our vision and goal for the alternative packet. The alternative packet idea came out of, um, some interim committee work that happened in rules review and general government oversight committee. And, um, this is the moment where we sort of eat a little bit of crow. I've never been involved in these things before, but in talking to people who have, it's amazing what happens when you are on the other side of the issue when all of a sudden, when, when it's someone else's issue that you don't like, you wanna make it as hard as possible. But in …

Ms. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I'm going to oppose this motion, the alternate packet. It would definitely negatively impact our vision and goal for the alternative packet. The alternative packet idea came out of, um, some interim committee work that happened in rules review and general government oversight committee. And, um, this is the moment where we sort of eat a little bit of crow. I've never been involved in these things before, but in talking to people who have, it's amazing what happens when you are on the other side of the issue when all of a sudden, when, when it's someone else's issue that you don't like, you wanna make it as hard as possible. But in …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's delightful reading. Thank you for the opportunity. You're welcome. Um, so my, my real question, it has to do with why we have to do it this way is, and so I did get an answer from Mayor Leach that said that there's some sort of federal designation, but is it possible that we could somehow not have to read this and vote on it next time? So I guess this would be something that this committee may want to consider during the interim, is to find out why is it that the law says that once a bypass or once a road has been designated as a scenic byway and once a corridor plan …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Emily, could you just tell us, um, how much this costs, both in terms of dollar costs for contractors, plus the amount of paid worker hours that were just paid outta people's budgets, just out working on this. Just a rough guess as to how much this was, this report cost.

So Mayor Heard has convinced me that it actually does matter. Otherwise I would vote no out of protest because I just don't wanna read that thing again, ever. It was lovely. It was well written, it was well prepared, but I don't really know why we had to read it. And so I'm gonna of course, encourage our team to take a look and find out why that had to happen. But, uh, yeah. So I'm gonna end up voting yes, but only under duress. Otherwise that would be a no.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I wanna make sure I am getting this right. So it's the only money that's coming in is voluntary contributions. There's no new fees, new taxes, anything like this. So completely voluntary. So

So if I may follow up, Mr. Chairman, go ahead. So the, the 2 million that's coming from the tiff, that has to be appropriated somehow, right? That's,

That might be, might be good to find out how that money, but, and that money would just come from the tiff. It's not necessarily from motor vehicle registrations, it's

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, I don't know if it would be appropriate to have Udot come up now or during public comment to answer that question. That would be helpful.

There you go. Okay. So to make sure I understand. So that, uh, fund, uh, right now there is a prioritization process to prioritize all these processes. If this bill were to pass, it would automatically jump to the front of the line.

Yeah, I, I'm just still trying to figure out where the, where the, what the impact. So if, if this bill were to pass this project would be funded, and then other projects that are competing ideas that are competing for the other fund possibly wouldn't be funded.

Thank Mr. Chair. I love the idea. I love the program. I don't like the way this is being funded. I think this should, uh, be create a program seeking RFA, uh, use the, the appropriations process. I, I don't like earmarks generally, so, um, I'd love the program. I have concerns with the funding.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move to hold. Okay. The motion is to hold. Would you like to speak to that? Absolutely. So, um, in the early 2020s, we had a rash, like truckloads of people wanting to add to the list of commemorative periods. And some of those were things I supported. Some of those were things I would not support, which is coming in. We were spending a lot of legislative time having presentations, taking up committee time on the floor, floor debates, people, speaking force, people speaking against. And at the end of the day, it's just a commemorative period. So legislative leadership asked us to come up with a better way of handling this. So it …

Thank you Mr. Bill. I move that we favorably Mr. Chair. Sorry. Uh, Mr. Chair, I have moved that we favorably recommend Senate Bill 1 32 Space Port Amendments.

Say Senator, how did they get kicked off that rotation? Is that for just being bad?

Okay. I was, I was out taking care of something, but if you can Answer again, that'd be great. Oh, okay.

established in 1990 as the entity responsible for collecting data to inform the public policy makers and other decision makers about the quality and cost of healthcare in the state of Utah. The goal of 1 99 is to strengthen the operational aspects of the health of the health data authority. And this is largely in response to an OA performance audit from last year. That audit concluded that there is value in the data program, but some operational aspects need improvement. So what it does is it eliminates outdated language and requires the department to have publicly available plans that cover all aspects of the data data program. It clarifies how sensitive data can be used within the department …

yield to a series of questions? Representative Moss, we yield to a series of questions. Yes, yes. Representative Thurston. So can you clarify whether the sales tax exemption applies to just the lenses or does it also include the frames? I it would include the frames only with prescription lenses, not non cause, non, uh, prescription ware. So is there any price limit to how expensive those frames can be before they're no longer exempt from the sales tax?

Okay. Mr. Speaker, here's, so here's the problem I have when we talk about frames, we're crossing over between a device and into fashion clothing. As you may be aware, you can buy fashion frames from designer brands that are thousands of dollars, and I don't feel sympathetic that those items should be exempted from the sales tax that I, you know, if there was a, if there was a price limit that said maybe the frames the first a hundred dollars or the first, something like that. But to just tell people that your choice of wearing Gucci or Prada or whatever you want to do somehow now gets you exempt from sales tax. Just because you can put …

One question. I am curious if this, uh, definition of w wildland urban interface currently is defined by the Utah Wildland Urban Interface Code or the International Wildland Urban Interface Code.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. If it's the Utah Wildland Urban Interface, I can a hundred percent support this.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. We'll to sponsor yield to two questions, a series of questions. Representative Gricius will yield to a series of questions.

So, uh, to the sponsor, are there people who are using this for criminal purposes to avoid being detected and be able to transfer money across country lines? Absolutely. If we see that, especially as we've seen an uptick in fentanyl and drugs moving through the state. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, on the list of approved documents, would a passport issued by a foreign country, uh, be acceptable as an, as a form of id?

Can you tell us how the school board association is feeling about the third sub?

Can you tell us how the school board association is feeling about the third sub?

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. Uh, many of you have been to a variety of websites where on the side, in the bar, on the top and the bottom, you're bombarded with advertising. We don't allow that on our state websites. You go to a state government website, it's not there, but it is a very valuable tool that is in our arsenal. So being able to allow state programs to be advertised, if you will, or promoted on our state website, really is a helpful way for us to get more information to more people in more surgical circumstances. And especially the programs we're talking about are lifesaving programs, suicide prevention, organ donation, …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. Uh, many of you have been to a variety of websites where on the side, in the bar, on the top and the bottom, you're bombarded with advertising. We don't allow that on our state websites. You go to a state government website, it's not there, but it is a very valuable tool that is in our arsenal. So being able to allow state programs to be advertised, if you will, or promoted on our state website, really is a helpful way for us to get more information to more people in more surgical circumstances. And especially the programs we're talking about are lifesaving programs, suicide prevention, organ donation, …

Mr. Chair, just, so, just to make sure I'm absolutely crystal clear. So if the, uh, complete ban on CRE bill passes, this bill would be dormant in case something happened. And so this is a backup plan. Well, in it's another way of thinking about this so that there's least some regulation for safety. Correct.

Thank you Mr. Chair members of the committee. And, um, there is a third sub and if it's okay with the chair, I would like to speak to the third sub and I, I don't know if you want adopt that first or just course

So the third sub adds to important provisions that were overlooked. The first one clarifies a definition of farm vehicles to ensure that farm, all farm vehicles that are appropriately, uh, labeled would be exempt from the emissions attest. And the other one also deals with the Mercedes-Benz fiasco, if you want to call it that, that will ensure that, uh, the state is able to use the mitigation settlement money, uh, for those Mercedes from, for Mercedes-Benz. So it, it adds the definition of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles into the exempted class. And that's the difference between the third and the second sub.

Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. So House Bill 22 was a interim committee study. Bill, uh, tax commission came to us with a concern about the vintage vehicle program. And the specific concern was that there, it is widely viewed that there's widespread cheating and they have no ability to enforce it. So they asked us to come up with a solution, either give them the ability to enforce it or get rid of the program. So, uh, the committee's initial discussion was let's get rid of the program, but then we discovered that there are, uh, three benefits that would go away, one of which is very important to some people. So the three benefits are …

No, so the, on the old program, so the, the, there was no definition of mileage for the vintage vehicle program, Otherwise I thought there was a 3000 mile. Okay. The 15 hundreds probably. I thought it was 15, But yeah, I, I only could find ever any mention of 1500 in, in code and, but, and I don't think there was a, a clear definition anyway. I don't know for sure how you police it, but that probably works anyway. Yeah, I think, and I think your point is well taken that we don't know how to police it. We trust people to be honest and um, you know, car collectors as a group are honest people. So.

And and part of the reason why that's important is because there's not a whole lot of incentive. I mean, the incentive is you don't pay the registration fee for a person who has a car. They're saving 30, $40 a year. It's not that huge of an incentive, but it preserves that benefit to collector. We have collectors in our state that have thousands of cars and so you take that 30 or 40 and multiply that across thousand Listen cars. I think there is a, there, there's a lot of cars there. I don't know anybody that has Well, I do actually no. People that have thousands of cars. So it does happen. It does. And so well, …

That's a great question. I'm looking to Rachel to see if I can remember where in here it has the old definition of vintage vehicle. Um, there's a, it's kind of a long bill. I thought it was, there were three separate definitions when that was part of the problem. So there were different definitions of what a vintage vehicle was, but they were in the code. It said these were intended to be not driven for daily transportation. They were supposed to be collector cars for parades, et cetera. And we all know that we had neighbors that had the license plate with that cute little model T Ford and they were driving those things to work back and …

No, you, you get to keep, if, if your car currently has a Model T license plate, like, like, uh, Ms. Rockwell mentioned earlier the Okay. Tax commission's policy is that when a license plate is discontinued, they don't recall them. They just let people keep, keep them because it's just not worth dealing with. Okay.

Yeah. So the benefit of the citizens of Utah are the, we won't have to pay for the expense of buying new Okay. Non OB two equipment and, and maintaining it. Okay. People who have a car that is 1995 or older or that does not have an OB two port, and that's, there are several examples in here of other cars when they go to register, it will say you're exempt. So they don't have to get an emissions test. So they will save on the emissions test and the county save on having to have the equipment. So that's, that's the primary benefit that the tax commission was, was pushing towards.

um, that's a good thing. This was something that was requested by the tax commission to clarify and I bet there's nobody here behind me that knows the answer to that question. So I'm looking to, Rachel, can we find out what line that is? So I could read that rep replica. Oh, Say the question again. So Senator, what was your question? So my question is, what determines the year of a replica? Is it the year that it replicates or the year that it's manufactured? I Go ahead Rachel. Hold on. I dunno. She'll get that. It Starts talking about custom vehicle, vehicle 47. Yeah. Replica is a, uh, so the old definition said a replica vehicle means …

Great Representative Thurston. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, I got here just a little bit late, but I, I want to make clear what I heard from the public comment, um, that this bill simplifies and streamlines the process for licensing and regulation. Um, and then also just maybe a question for the sponsors. Does this keep the requirements the exactly the same as they always were, so that there's no new additional burden on people wanting to become an SLP? Maybe Representative Ballard, are you able to answer that?

Uh, Representative Thurston. Thank you Mr. Chair. I have three or four questions, if that's okay.

Uh, so the first question, uh, just could you just recap for us, the Fire marshal already runs certifications for what types of similar, um, installations or applications? We,

Thank you. And to the sponsor, on line 96, you reference establishing a licensing and certification program. Could you tell me, uh, representative, what's the difference between a license and a certification

Not really, but that's okay. Oh, sorry. So representative, um, can you tell me, did this is creating a new license for a new occupation, did you, um, go to LER and have a sunrise review for this license? And if not, why not? I don't see it as creating a new sunrise for a new occupation right now for different businesses. We already have third parties, companies like State Fire, who come and do inspections on our hood systems and different things in, in where we have, um, you know, grease fires, those types of things. This lifesaving, uh, units that you said, right, The life safety systems, Life safety system, it's just augmenting another, augmenting another system that …

Well, while we're waiting for them in, we can find, I'm just gonna express a, a couple of concerns. Uh, the first one, of course is the, is the implementation that, that gives me concern. And my second concern is, um, that as a government, we tend to make things harder than they need to be. And this just carte blanche, no restrictions, no guidelines, nothing to the state Ophir court martial. He can make it as easy or as hard as he wants with no guidelines from us as to what that process should be. And I am hesitant to give the executive branch that much latitude. I would rather, um, I would rather have a version of this …

Question for the sponsor. I'm looking at your area wage standard chart on the right hand column. Uh, it looks like in Beaver County or thereabouts, you can get carpenters for about 18 bucks an hour, and laborers for about $11 an hour. So, but your bill would say that if that employer bid a job in Salt Lake County, he could not compete on wages, he would have to bid as if those were Salt Lake County workers. Is that right?

Yeah. So the project's built in Salt Lake County, he couldn't say, well, I can get these guys to work me for 18 and $12 an hour, but now I gotta jack up my bid and I'm not gonna be able to compete because I've gotta pay my workers this higher Salt Lake County wage. And so that would preclude the rural guys from taking advantage of this opportunity to get a little bit more money. Is that how I'm seeing this?

So, so you would tell the contractor, since this a Salt Lake County project, you have to pay your carpenters at least $32 an hour, and your labor's at least 25. And he's got people who are willing to work for significantly less than that, do a good job, willing to drive up here and do the job for significantly less than that. But we would preclude those rural guys from having an opportunity to come up and bid on Salt Lake County Project because they would have to be, they'd be priced out.

That's, that's, maybe that's part of my confusion, Mr. Mr. Chair. So if we could build a Salt Lake County project for 30% labor costs using rural Utah labor, why wouldn't we do that? That seems better. Like it's better for everybody. It provides rural guys jobs, gets the job done, good quality workers. Why would we prevent that project from happening other than to protect the Salt Lake County workers and getting a higher wage?

Did you have a question for him? Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So Gavin, can you, um, help me understand, um, this issue of if there was a floor on wages, would that make your businesses more competitive or less competitive?

So, so there is a potential that it has no impact, but there's also potential that it would increase

Representative Thurston. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanna make sure I understand what you just said. So are you saying that if a contractor from Kane or Piute or Wayne County came in a bit on a project lower than you because they have lower labor costs, that their, that there's a necessary assumption that their quality and safety would be lower just because they're from rural Utah?

Okay. Um, think I, I think that would be surprising to our rural Utah contractors to hear that, that they are not quality and not safe.

Uh, Representative Thurston. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sounds like that there's a problem and that we're just rushing to any solution, even if this solution won't work. So if the problem is they're not paying workers' comp, put that in the contract. Sue 'em, take 'em to jail. Whatever you gotta do. Uh, if the problem is, is that they do crappy work, put that in the contract. Have your inspectors go out and inspect the job and say, this is crappy work. You gotta redo it. Have them post a bond. Have them, there's all sorts of things you can do to address the problems, but the assumption that just making them pay their workers more is going to …

I'm in the second sub line one 15. Uh, this tells us to delete section 6 0 2. Yeah. Can you tell us what section 6 0 2 is and why we would want to delete it?

Okay. So we don't think the international guys have got that quite right. That's right. We brought it home to a Utah code.

You Mr. Speaker. So colleagues, uh, we live in a modern age. Back when, uh, my great Greatuncle was in the very first legislature, it was not like this. They didn't have computers, they didn't have microphones. Uh, if you wanted to know what was in a bill, you had to go down to the bill print room and get a copy and read through it. Uh, and that's kind of how things were. But we live in a modern age now where that's not required anymore. Uh, information flows quickly, it flows easily. We allow the public to comment remotely through teleconferencing. We do a lot of things that are modern. One of the things that we are lagging …

Yeah. So I have an amendment that I wanna propose, but I want to give you some background before I propose the amendment.

So, uh, we have a simple process for abandoning bills before they are numbered. But once a bill gets numbered, it gets really complicated and difficult to do. Um, in fact, it's nearly impossible to actually abandon a bill. You can strike the enacting clause, but that doesn't ever tell the public what's actually happening with that bill. So, um, in the process, there is a fundamental question about can we require a house bill that's already in the Senate to take action on a house bill? The answer is we cannot. The Senate is an independent body. So the amendment, oh, this time I'd like to move Amendment one in my name.

I would. So this amendment, what it clarifies is that we are not going, if frankly, uh, colleagues, if you have a bill that you're going to abandon, it's already been numbered. It's almost surely still here in the house. 99% of the time it will be in a committee or it'll be on the board. It'll be in rules, it'll be here in the house. But in the rare circumstance that it happens to be in the Senate, this amendment simply says it's in the Senate. If it ever comes back, you can abandon it, but if it stays in the Senate, you can't abandon it while in the Senate. So that's what the Amendment does. It's a, I …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. So the impact of this bill, now that it's been amended, is that if you have a bill that you just don't want to get any more emails or texts, you want to signal to our colleagues and to the public that you're done, you're waving the white flag. This, this bill's not moving forward. It creates a real simple process for that to happen. And the process is that you notify the chief clerk, I wish to abandon this bill. Once the chief clerk has that bill in his possession, the bill is noted as abandoned and the speaker announces it to the body. It doesn't take any floor time, it doesn't, it re remove, …

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is completely under the sponsor's control. The sponsor is the one who decides when to notify the chief clerk. And the chief clerk then follows through the process to make it happen.

Yeah, thank you. Just briefly, colleagues, this was a, a, a concept that was brought to me by our prior chief clerk. Um, apparently the number of bills that were out there in uncertain circumstances causes workload caused her workload. And she said, could you help me figure out a way to get to cut down on the number of active bills so that we just have fewer things to keep track of? And this was the solution that we came up, came up with. And I encourage your support. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll sponsor a yield to a series of questions. Representative Wilcox, will you yield to a series of questions?

Uh, my first question I may be, my only question is, does this Bill, uh, sorry, actually it's two questions. I'll just ask them together. Does this bill require all state employees to get the day off, including public safety and other workers that necessarily are important for our safety? And the second one is, does the bill require other employers also such as hospitals and healthcare workers to give their employees a day off?

Yes. So I just want to make sure that I'm clear on how this works. So the refund goes to the seller of the vehicle for months that they paid for but did not get to use that. Is that correct?

Okay. And then if the buyer of the vehicle turned around and sold it again two months later, they could also re apply for the months that they didn't get to use. Is that, is that also correct Mr. Speaker?

'cause then we would also, the next person who bought that car would also be registering again. So sometimes we can get up to, you know, three or four people down the line that have paid double on certain months throughout the year.

When we had looked at data on this, I was surprised to see that there are cars in our state that trade hands as many as four or five times a year in a 12 month period. And that means we are collecting more in revenue than we were really supposed to collect if we were being equitable on the value of the property. So one of our fundamental tenants of property tax is that similarly situated properties should be taxed similarly. And we have some cars that are paying five times or they're contributing five times to what other cars are contributing and it's not fair. So I really do appreciate the sponsor for bringing this forward and helping …

So it's out of order for me to speak, but I would like to ask the leave of the committee to make a comment if that's okay with the chair. Um, I think holding it is a decent idea, but the problem is that if we want to change this so we don't have to prove these things, this is a resolution, right? Correct. And so we can't change the statute that requires us to do it in a resolution. So it doesn't really, I dunno, I kind of feel okay just letting it work its way through the process, but noting that somebody somewhere should fix that statute so that we don't have to do, do this resolution in …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so the tax itself is designed to discourage bad behavior. Do you have an estimate of the number of trucks that would not be registered in Utah because of the $175 fee?

Is it, is it zero or positive Judging from other programs and perhaps another bill on another?

I would. So what Amendment three does is instead of directing these funds into a restricted account, in other words, making this tax into an earmarked tax, it puts 'em in the transportation fund. They could still be used for these purposes. They could be used for other priorities, but it's not an earmark anymore. Um, and so part of my concern is that this is the, the, the catch 22 of being a government. When you tax the bad actors to raise money to solve a problem, your incentive is now for the bad actors to not go away. We're raising $175 off, off every bad truck that's on the road. Every bad truck that leaves the road costs …

Yeah. So the, the important thing to recognize here is this is the challenge of earmarks and government budgets. Once you create an earmark, it's really, really hard for that program to ever go away. Even efforts outlived as usefulness. We're all in the middle of budget committees right now. We all see those earmarks, and we wonder, how do we get rid of this? And the answer is, you can't. So putting it into transportation fund gives, um, the committee full discretion and authority to use that for clean air, for whatever they wanna do. But every year they can come back and modify and move that around. If we're putting it into a specific program, that's a lot …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we favorably recommend house Bill 2 63 as amended.

I would. Um, you know, this is, it is not fair that people are doing this test. I actually agree with my colleague that fee's probably too low. It probably, uh, if you did some sort of economic analysis and came back on the floor with a number that makes more sense, I'd probably be even more excited. But there is that problem of collecting money and, you know, the whole other issue. But I do think that if you did an economic analysis, this probably doesn't really solve the problem, but I love the, where it is right now. It creates a base framework that I can subscribe to and we can make this work for going forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, looking at line 180 3, instead of, uh, extending the Sunset date, the bill just gets rid of the Sunset date, so there would not be a Sunset date on that section.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Um, I just, this takes me down memory lane just a little bit. So, back in the day, we used to have a thing called the Occupational Profe Professional License to Review Committee. And if you wanted to create a new license for new profession, this provision required you to go to that committee and beg and plead and make your case and pay a fee and bring a study and show us to why these people were crazy enough to wanna be regulated. Um, so over time, that has evolved. That process has evolved. First of all, the committee no longer exists. Second of all, we have the new Occupational Professional Licensure Review office. …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I just wanna make sure I understand all of the purposes of the bill. So please, uh, lines 76 through 78, uh, require the division to define landscape work and identify the types of licensees that may engage in landscape work. So, um, just, just maybe could you just briefly comment on why that, why we need the division to define landscape work and those licenses?

So really the only reason for that definition is so that you can regulate those people a little bit more.

Okay, thank you. I just a couple of follow ups if I may. So, uh, at the, at the top of the bill in subsection one, all of these folks are required to have six hours of continual education that is approved by Doppel during a two year renewal period. And so you're proposing that for anybody who's doing landscape, that we increase that to nine. Is that, am I understanding that correctly in The, in the amendment?

So, just to make sure I understand then, so with the amendment, a general contractor would be required to spend 33% of their continuing education specifically in this two areas over and above anything else that they may, well, not over and above in addition to four hours in the rest of their profession. Is that right?

I would, and I would like to also have the sponsor have a second to pull that up so he can see what I'm proposing here, but I'll describe it briefly. So, I don't like the idea that we are prescribing what people have to do. We don't prescribe that for anybody else. None of the general contractors, none of everybody else is prescribed in statute what they have to do. We presume that they are professionals, that they're capable of knowing what's relevant for their job, and they seek that, that training and that continuing education. But I am compelled by the argument that there's something missing from the list. That if you are in a landscape business, that …

Yeah. I, um, I, I'm kind of like my, uh, colleague who lives way far north of me here. Um, I would be inclined to not vote for the bill in its entirety. Um, I am sympathetic to the argument that there may be some value in having UNLA on the list of, of training providers so that people who need that training can get credit for it. But that's as far as I'm willing to go. So I think that the amendment two takes me as far as I'm willing to go, and without amendment to, I'm probably a no on everything else.

Thank you. I may move that we favorably recommend Senate Bill 41. 24 24. Sorry, I thought I was gonna throw a bone to Senator Vickers and just recommend it now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, typically when we talk about charging the public a service fee, the service fee in aggregate helps offset the cost of providing that service. But it looks to me like that you're intending to use this for many other things beyond the cost of providing the service. Um, can you help me understand why we should be collecting essentially a tax or a surcharge, surcharge really on this data so that you can have extra revenue for other things when you're already lapsing lots of money to the general fund?

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, where did Jacob go? Ni, nicely done answering my questions. That was actually very helpful. Uh, I am in support of the motion to favorably recommend. I think, uh, as we have done a lot of work trying to get fees to match program costs, uh, and sometimes we find that we're leaving money on the table, that we have people who are using it, who aren't paying their fair share, which means that somebody else is paying too much for it. And so I, I do appreciate this is an effort to make sure that everybody's paying their fair share and that we're covering the cost of those who use the system. So …

Thank you. I move that we favorably recommend Senate Bill 40. Let's, let's move The, I move that we adopt the second sub third, third sub.

Yeah, there was a couple little typos that's just grammatical changes that they were updating. So yeah, we do need to adopt the third sub. Thank you for catching that. Okay.

My motion, I'll restate my motion. My motion is to adopt third substitute Senate bill 40.

Yeah. And I would also just point out for Senator Vickers, um, benefit that I try to read every bill, but when something gets repealed, I have to read all those repealed sections too. So this is a lot longer than it looks and I didn't do it, so,

Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair. You're ready. Uh, thank you Mr. Chair. So, uh, house Bill 1 99. Uh, and I, first of all, I just wanna just recognize and thank Senator Comore for being my Senate sponsor. Uh, he's participated on the legislative audit committee. I know Senator is Kimmy is also on the audit committee. And this is tying directly back to a legislative audit. So we wanna bring that to your attention. Uh, the Utah Health Data Authority was established in 1990 to collect data that is very valuable. It doesn't, we can do a lot of things with the data that's provided. And by the way, I have Kyle Lent here with me from the Department of …

That, that's a fantastic question. Um, the Health Data Authority does not currently, um, have a functionality to provide individual data to an individual. That functionality is generally, um, tied either to your healthcare providers or to your health insurance company. Um, I would say, just based on my professional experience, we are probably only less than five years away for individuals having access to their complete medical records and their health history on their own devices. So, but that is not currently something that the government is doing for you. It's usually a private sector opportunity. Thank you, chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill file was opened at the request of the Transportation Interim Committee in response to a presentation from DMV or the State Tax Commission. Um, they highlighted to us the difficult administrative situation that they have in statutory confusion related to the vintage vehicle program. So for those who are not familiar with the Vintage Vehicle program, um, there are three main benefits that a person gets from having their car declared a vintage vehicle. First is that it's exempt from emissions inspections. Second, it's exempt from the registration fee forever for life. And third, they can get the black historic plate without having to pay the $25 contribution. So as you can see, there's …

Think I just have a, just a quick question. So, um, how do we make the decision about which roads should become state roads and which should stay?

Just a quick follow up if I may, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. So the, the roads that are in this particular bill, those were vetted and proposed by somebody. Do you know who that somebody was? I, I sure do.

Thank you. Thank you for bailing out the sponsor. We're glad to have you here.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I move that we adopt the second substitute for House Bill 62.

Yeah, I would. I mean, this is, I mean this is a little bit of levity here today, but this is kind of an important thing because it does establish jurisdiction for maintenance and operations and other sorts of things. So this is kind of a big deal to actually, to have these roads de designated as state roads. It's good for the community, it's good. It helps us keep our funding straight. It does a lot of really good things and I'm glad that the sponsor is doing this for us today.

I think, just to make sure I understand, so this affects both TRT and TRCC?

We favorably recommend HB 2 72, Mr. Chair. Yep. I move that we place this on, recommend this to the consent calendar.

Would you like to comment to that motion? Yeah. This Is really just a technical cleanup. I don't think there's a huge amount of discussion. There's no opposition and it's been unanimously supported,

Um, my only question is, are there any other states that have put in provisions like this, or would we be the first as we always are?

Thank you. Uh, so the discussion here has mostly been about commercial and rental cars, but it appears that this also applies to private citizens. So currently if I were in, if I were here and my car was stolen, I wouldn't be allowed to report it to Salt Lake City Police, right, right away. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Then one more follow up. I might, so then, um, so reporting a car stolen when it's just a contractual dispute is in itself inappropriate under another law, right. Re reporting a crime that, that, you know, is not really a crime is already punishable by the courts or somebody, right.

So this, this bill just gets the balance, right, which is, is like, you can report it, but you better be sure that it's, that it's more likely than not stolen and not just, well, it's late and I got another renter here and I want to get it out the door and I'm using the, the police to kind of help my business along.

Hey, uh, representative, could you just, um, remind me, I, I may have missed this part of your presentation, but electric assisted scooters, what are, what are you doing to those poor kids?

Okay. So then, and then if it's a high power e scooter, it's a motorcycle.

I might be convinced that they should have a driver's license. I, I, that would be a safer thing, but yeah. Great. Well, I guess there can be more conversations later.

Thank you. I noticed that Tyler just walked in. Is it an appropriate time to see if he could answer some of those legality questions?

So, just to follow up on, on Representative Ballard's question. So under federal law, a landlord can say, I'm only going to allow biological females to live in this apartment. And if you're not a biological female, you can't live here. That's allowed under federal law, but it is prohibited under current state law or not prohibited under current state law.

I guess my real question is, given what federal law says, and that all landlords are bound by federal law, does this bill actually do anything that they can't already do?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, I've been told that it is a bad time to make your case on the side of the road. So I'm thinking if the guy's got my car, and he's saying like, and I'm telling him, Hey, you're breaking law. He says, no, I don't, I'm not breaking law. I want my money. You don't get me, don't get your car if you don't gimme the money. So how does this, how does this work in practice? When I go down there and I said, look, you haven't followed the law. I don't have to pay this much money. Give me my car right now. And he said, no, I followed the law to …

And so then, so this, so they're not down there trying to get their car out of impound. They're just, they're just going to the, to the towing company and said, you, you are not gonna get paid from us. We don't really care what happens to the car. I'm, I'm trying to think through the sequence of events here. Sure.

If you sent me a bill in the mail, I would just throw it in the garbage. Right. And just like, I'm gonna ban you. But h how, I'm just like, I'm missing the practicality of the bank just refusing to pay.

Okay. I would like to speak in favor of the motion. Um, mostly because I don't like it when tow companies do bad things. Uh, so this, if this helps somebody somewhere enforce that tow companies should be following the rules that we've given 'em. 'cause we've given them a lot, it's time for some thing to go the other way. Sorry, I'm speaking favor of the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm a little confused at your statement because you said this bill would leave you without the ability to protect intellectual property, client list, et cetera, but we just heard from our expert witness that all of those are already protected and would remain protected and lost. So if that's your only concern, and we have given those up, what is the concern?

So if you, uh, if you assume that we do understand the difference between contract and non-compete, there is no more concerns. That's your really, your only concern is those two things are two are not carefully defined. And with that, if we could more carefully define 'em, you'd have no more concerns. I,

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's that that last part is the part that concerns me is that you're, you're claiming that we're not allowing you to protect yourselves when we are. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You Mr. Colmore. So protectionism has served your industry well. Has it served your workers well? Excuse me, Protectionism has served your industry well. Has it served your workers well?

Isn't, isn't that the point is that these non-competes prevent turnover, which could be a healthy thing in a competitive market.

Thank you. Um, do you have a contract that says that when you train an employee and pay for that training, that they're responsible to reimburse you if they leave before a certain amount of time?

I mean, that's an opinion, but there is a tool available that you haven't used. Thank you.

Thank Mr. Chair. Um, this is what happens when economists think about lawyer problems. You get great answers. Uh, I have a statement here that I'm just, just very brief from the FTC document. Today, at least 30 million Americans are impacted by non-compete clauses. Many of these non-competes, to be clear, would likely be unenforceable in court. As such, they are scare tactics. They're scare tactics designed to take advantage of working people who don't have the money to get a lawyer to tell them this, this is exploitation. It is predatory and it's morally wrong. It is an abusive tactic that makes life less affordable for the people who, who form the backbone of this country. And I …

So this Bill appropriates the base budgets for 10 agencies that are overseen by our committee and those agencies are the Career Service Review Office, the Departments of Commerce, government operations and financial institutions, the Governor's office, including the Lieutenant Governor's Office and the Elections Office, the insurance department, the Labor Commission, the Public Service Commission, the Office of the State auditor, and the Tax Commission.

In total, this Bill Appropriates $149 million from general fund and income tax fund for operating capital budgets and another 10 million from the general fund to other funds and accounts.

Restricted accounts make up the largest funding source for this entire budget at 153.9 million because several of these agencies are almost entirely funded by the respective restricted accounts from all funding sources. This Bill Appropriates over $450 million.

And just a quick note, our interim deep dive was on fees because some of these agencies are entirely funded by fees. Um, our, our committee oversees 49% of the fees, but every com budget committee has fees. And we would highly encourage you to take a careful look to make sure that the fees in your committees reflect costs and any requested increases are actually justified and not just another way of raising revenue from taxpayers.

Commissioner Speaker, I move the adoption of the first substitute Motions order. Would you like to speak to It? I would. Uh, so there were some comments and, and questions about, um, can we do something to make sure that we are enhancing privacy and security? So over the weekend, last weekend, I worked with, uh, some of our colleagues here. The, the Chief Information Security Officer, the Chief Privacy Officer, the Chief Information Officer, and the first substitution, um, incorporates, um, everything that we could possibly think of to hold the Department of Health and Human Services accountable for. Im implementing the very best available security and privacy protection. So this first substitute is very important because it adds …

You Mr. Speaker. Uh, the Utah, the Utah Health Data Authority was established in 1990 as the entity responsible for collecting data to inform the public policy makers and others, other decision makers about the quality and cost of their healthcare. Uh, this information is used for a lot of different purposes and is very valuable to policy makers. A most recent example was recently we had a bill discussing, uh, the value of fluoridation in public water. And the question was, well, what difference does it make? And we were able to go to this data source because it existed and pull out data that showed, um, exactly the impact of fluoridation in the water and help inform public …

You Mr. Speaker. Uh, the Utah, the Utah Health Data Authority was established in 1990 as the entity responsible for collecting data to inform the public policy makers and others, other decision makers about the quality and cost of their healthcare. Uh, this information is used for a lot of different purposes and is very valuable to policy makers. A most recent example was recently we had a bill discussing, uh, the value of fluoridation in public water. And the question was, well, what difference does it make? And we were able to go to this data source because it existed and pull out data that showed, um, exactly the impact of fluoridation in the water and help inform public …

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm just wondering, um, is there some chance this might violate the A DA because the whole parking space thing is tied to the a DA and that we would subject ourselves to some sort of federal intrusion if we tried to do something like this?

Yes, thank you, Andrew. Um, you mentioned that there may be other ways of addressing this that are, um, helpful, that, that don't conflict with the Erda A and don't di diminish the access of D dis of disabled Persons D Um, yeah. Can you just maybe give us one or two examples of those?

So if I may, Mr. Church a quick Sure. So that last option, um, limiting it to the third trimester, does that comply with the a DA and is there some possibility that it restricts access to parking spots for disabled persons?

Thank you. I, I just wanted to clarify on the, the Lime rentals, those little nasty, I mean those little nice things that people ride around, it's my understanding that you're supposed to be 18 to rent one of those. Correct. So if there are tourists coming in from outta town and letting their kids who are under 18 ride those, I don't have any sympathy for also not cracking down on that. So I'm just thinking if you're gonna come back with another version of the bill, we should probably talk about

Well we can. I mean, it just, I basically should, I think what it should say, I don't know. We'll have to talk about it because those kids shouldn't be on those things anyway. They shouldn't. So why would we be talking about helmets or training if they're not supposed to be on 'em anyway? And, and if Someone comes to Utah to ride off highway vehicles, they have to take this training class before they can ride.

Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So this is something that we worked on, I worked on last year at the request of Megan Allen, our house chief clerk. We, um, did okay getting, it sort of started, but there were a lot of concerns. And so we ended up taking it back to legislative process committee. Um, and, uh, one thing that became clear is that this has to be a house rule. It can't be a joint rule because the Senate does not share our views on this type of thing. So, uh, lemme just explain what the, what the issue is and what the solution is that that, that Megan and I had worked out. So the …

Or did you think through that? Yeah, We thought through that and, and it, the, the challenge is there's, there's two, there's two ways this could go down. So one is it's a hostile takeover. So now I've got a bill and I've, it's got to a point where I just don't want to deal with it anymore because whatever I just, like, I really actually think it's a bad idea to proceed. Um, and then allowing someone to take your efforts and just put their name on it, continue forward, seems to be counter to our process that typically in the house, the, the bill belongs to the sponsor, it doesn't belong to anybody else. So the hostile version …

Thank you. Just as this was a pro process that was brought to me by our former chief clerk, and, um, even though she's not the chief clerk anymore, I checked with her on the way out and she said, just make it better for the next guy. So just please continue with that and hopefully can make it happen.

With the chair's permission. I have a handout because you can't have a bill about handouts without a handout. Please go ahead and distribute that. We'll pass it. Yeah. So this also was a bill that was heard by the committee last year, went over to the Senate, got modified significantly by the Senate and ultimately the Senate decided after they fixed it that they didn't want to pass it. So they said, well, let's take this back to the legislative process committee. Um, and it has been back there and created, I would just say a robust discussion among the legislative process committee. So it's very interesting. But, uh, just for, for context, um, as now whether you like …

Think I just want to thank all of you. I'm looking here. I think everybody heard this bill last year. Um, and some of you heard it twice 'cause you're on the process committee. Uh, and very good feedback. We're trying to minimize the burden on our staff, but still provide this valuable service to the public and to our own body. So I would encourage your support. Thank you.

You, Mr. Chair. So, um, my biggest concern with these types of bills is that we set the bar too high on this new path, and that we have to come back later and pull that bar down. So, um, okay. One of you, could you just tell me like how confident you are that this bar isn't too high and is creating just yet another barrier? Um, and so like, what, what were the, what were the thought, what was the thought process and establishing the levels of training that are included in your bill?

I, I do. Mr. Chairman, if I may follow up. Yeah. So, um, so the, the beauty of this is that people could still stay here and work here and get this training while they're, while they're working. Yeah. So who do we have in Utah that's capable? Do we have the capacity, um, does Rocky Mountain need to have a program in acupuncture do this? Or how do they, who's the, who are the trainers to make this happen? Yeah.

Yeah. Uh, so what's your assessment of, um, the availability of acupuncturists in the state of Utah right now? Do we have just the right amount, not enough or, uh, too many There?

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So you mentioned that there are plenty of acupuncture. What's, what's the wait time currently for you? A patient, a new patient to get an appointment with you?

Like, just I could get an appointment with you tomorrow. Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Oh, yeah. My question Was for Jeff, he can't do it tomorrow. Can we do it next week? Right. Okay. I was thinking, uh, I just forgot that rep, Mr. Sheway is still on board online because we got off on another tangent here. So, uh, Mr. Sheway, um, could you, uh, tell us this proposal is an alternative path. How does it compare to our other goals of making sure that we're working within a competency based framework and not requiring excessive hours and excessive, um, irrelevant requirements? Is this, is this consistent with, are other stated goals that way?

Yeah, I, I'd like to speak against the motion to hold only because I'm ready to vote yes. To move the bill out. Um, I don't have any concerns. I mean, it's honestly, the, this is a profession where the risk of harm is minimal. It's like massage therapy. The, the, the risks are theoretical. They're not practical. It's basically, it just doesn't happen. And the benefit is huge. So from a consumer perspective, the benefit is huge. The risk is small. Why make it hard for people who are ready and willing to learn the profession to get in the profession? So I'm, I'm ready to move the bill out as it is today. So I would speak against …

Yes, I would. So part of the, uh, impact of this bill is that it gives the assessors less obligation to review, um, excessive property value increases and in the way the bill was originally drafted. It just has a broad based jump for all properties. So if your property jumps from, say, a hundred thousand dollars to $200,000 or 300,000, 400,000, at some point somebody says, Hey, maybe the assessor ought take a look at that in the bill. The, the old threshold is 150% increase and the new bill moves at a 350% increase, which makes sense for vacant land or for some commercial properties. I don't know that it makes sense for residential properties. So Amendment two …

You, Mr. Chair. So I am looking around the room. I don't remember if everybody was on the committee for interim, but just in case you warned, or in case a member of the public that warn, I wanna explain where this bill came from and how it got here. So, uh, as part of our normal process during the interim, uh, tax commission came and pointed out several things in the code that were causing them grief or headaches, or that they viewed as problematic. One of them was one that we have probably talked about for three, four years in a row, which is the, uh, cheating associated with the vintage vehicle program. So, uh, you've probably all …

Yes. So the classic vehicle, I'm looking here to see if the definition of a classic vehicle, uh, It's on the first page of the model. It's what? First page at the bottom? We go. Classic. Oh, it's in purple. Even Classic vehicle means a motor vehicle or motorcycle with a model year of 1982 or older that is driven fewer than 1500 miles per calendar year, or a classic travel trailer. So we've taken the guesswork out of it for the tax commission. It's pretty straightforward. It's just the age of the vehicle and it's driven fewer than 1500 miles and they can get the classic designation. And the only benefit from that designation is the lifetime registration fee. …

So replica vehicle, uh, so none of you're old enough to remember, but back in the seventies there were people who were creating, uh, rat rods. It's rat rods. So they're, they're designed to look like a model T. So they have a model T coop body, and they have, but they have this big, you know, Adams family engine in the front with the pipe sticking out the side, and they're really tiny wheels and all that stuff. Uh, so they're designed to look like a model t that's just been modified, but they're really brand new construction. So we have adjusted the definition of what a replica vehicle is, so that, that's just easier for the tax tax …

Yeah, just so everybody, in case you were missing, substitute one sub I sent out substitute one yesterday, which created this non B two accommodation. Um, substitute two just makes that even easier on the counties. So they asked for it to be even streamlined, but essentially that's what it does, is it makes the, makes an accommodation for non B two vehicles that are imported from countries like Japan, et cetera, et cetera.

So I'm just having a hard time believing, does law enforcement ever even enforce this? This is like the craziest thing ever

So did that police officers get reprimanded by somebody? Can we, can you have a I do not know. Yeah. Can we have a citation on the floor to reprimand that? And my other, my other question is this, obviously this bill does not, if somebody wants to signal they can, right? It's not against a law of Correct. Because sometimes you're not supposed to signal if you're not doing something, but you can if you want.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative. Can you just remind me, uh, when someone gets a Class C misdemeanor citation, what actually happens? You, you're not in handcuffs in the back of a car. Right.

But then after you get the Class C misdemeanor, then you got, first of all, you gotta figure out how to get where you're going. 'cause you don't have a car. You mean if the vehicle's been impounded, you got, yeah. Yeah. But, and then the Class C means you gotta show up at the court and do some whatever you gotta do.

But my, my understanding is, is that class C misdemeanors for first time offenses, jail time is almost never a thing unless you're a really habitual offender. Not, I'm not looking at Representative Dominguez or anything, but, but, but typically that, so it's typically it plays out as if it was a citation for most people. It,

All right. I'm looking at if anybody, law enforcement in the room can wink at me if I got it right. Okay. We, I think looks like we got it right. Okay. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we favorably re recommend. Bill, can I get an amendment? We have an amendment. I move that we adopt the fabulous amendment number two.

Yeah, I, I agree with the sponsor on many of these issues. Uh, this is not complicated. Uh, it's, it's not that hard to get a driving privilege card. Uh, I've had family members who've come from other countries and, uh, taken them down to the DMV and gone through process. It's, it's just not, I mean, there is some effort required, but this is a privilege. And so there, the people put in the effort, uh, you, you can take care of this, and people who just don't know, don't care, don't want to, uh, just, it's not fair to the rest of society for people like that to be out there, especially in the second part of the …

Sorry. That's okay. Uh, so the first picture you showed had a bicycle, and it looked like that the bicycle carrier had reflectors on it. So I'm assuming that you meant that as an example of a good thing.

Okay. So that was, that was kinda my question was like, it seems like that that example would be exactly what we want people to do, which is if you can't, if it's gonna cover up the lights, you gotta have least reflectors. And by the way, I did check the information that I got was that single axle trailers do have to have reflectors, but they don't have to have lights, so.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Um, just, uh, we, we mentioned, and this may be more for the commissioner, but uninsured motorists is still a problem. And I think in this bill we're not actually trying to create new solutions. We're just trying to clean up some ineffective solutions. Is that Yes. Is that a good way of ex

Thank you for that clarification. But, but we are committed to continuing to look for ways to clean up the uninsured motorist problem. Yeah,

Great. Thank you. That, that was my, um, that's why I voted against it during the interim is because I didn't, we still don't have an answer, but at least I understand now that we have a commitment that we're all working to solve that problem. So thank you.

I, I was going to, maybe I can do this later if it's appropriate, but I was gonna clarify, uh, representative Sawyer's question about that. 'cause I was involved in that discussion. Feel free. Go ahead. Yeah, So there's a difference between special group license plates, which we are not touching, and the special interest vehicle, which is rarely used. It's this weird category with a weird looking plate. And we're just, the, the intent of the bill always was to just get rid of that whole program. And it was a, it's a cost savings to the department for something that's kind of weird and didn't fit. Anyway. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah, the first substitute clears that there's a technical error that was corrected and also, uh, fixes that language on the special interest vehicles to reduce costs for the tax commission.

By the way. First sub. Thank you. Um, no, I, I'm a rookie. We've, We've, uh, we talked about this plenty in the interim and um, again, the uninsured motorist thing still is a problem, hasn't been solved, but maybe next year we'll get that fixed.

Thank Mr. Chair. Um, I have with me Nate Winters from the Department of Health and Human Services, and then also online, uh, Kyle Lund, and, I dunno, Patrice may be online as well. So tho they're, they're gonna help me with the presentation. Um, this is a department request bill. I'll give a brief introduction and then I'll ask, um, Nate and Kyle to provide more detail. So, uh, healthcare data has been collected in the state of Utah since 1990, and it is very important for us to be able to collect the healthcare data for lots of reasons. And I'll let Nate and Kyle talk about those reasons. Um, it is collected in all 50 states. Every …

Great. Thank you Kyle. And Nate. Um, so I just wanna just kind of add on to what, uh, Kyle said about using data for policy. Uh, Utah is known as one of the leading states in terms of data availability for policymakers. In other words, legislators. And the case that he referred to last year was actually very critical. We had a bill talking about the fluoridation of water, and there was a question about what difference does it make? Well, where do you find data on that? Well, fortunately, the State Department of Health has data on cavities and, and children's health, oral health, and was able to provide data that helped us all to make that policy …

Yeah. So I received that similar similar com uh, comment feedback. So amendment one adds a requirement that the health department, um, include in their plan actions or efforts that will be used to prevent, identify individual re-identification. So they, they already have policies, they're already doing that. But we wanna make sure that that is consciously front of mind that this issue of re-identification is something that is part of their strategic plan. And so that they are taking, you know, again, working with the state privacy officer to figure out how do we prevent this? There, there are, there are guidelines, there are federal guidelines, and there are other best practices that can be used to prevent re-identification.

This is an important addition to the privacy protections requiring the Health Department to have and to publish their strategy for preventing re-identification.

Alright. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm, I'm gonna attempt to miracle. I'm gonna try to re help my colleague change his mind on the spot. Um, the, the, the reason why cybersecurity is not mentioned in this particular section of code is because it is mentioned already in the Department of Health and Human Services code. So they already have a cybersecurity requirement by the state of Utah. They're already working with the state privacy officer, the state cybersecurity office. All of those people are already, this falls under the umbrella of all of that additional protection. So we didn't feel a need to call it out special in this section of code because it is captured, uh, at the …

But I will be happy, I will be happy to work with Representative ffi to, to look at other changes or strengthen how this, we, you do that From the committee member made the motion substitute, right? Still has to come back to you. You're the one who made the final. Still not, it's still not still not done until the maker of the motion. So we're still in the, in between of to hold.

Yeah. So, um, absolutely. If the representative has some specific ideas of the way that we could change Lake Wind to the bill that would get his support, I would a hundred percent want that. Not only because I want his vote, which is good, but because I want it to be the best policy. Yeah. And I think that's the most important thing. And as we all know that we would prefer to do our work here in the committee if we can, uh, before we get to the house floor. And, you know, it's day three. Yeah. We got time. So, um, I'm not opposed, um, I'm taking him at his word that we are gonna be able …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I, I fully understand that this was an attempt to fix a real serious problem that just kind of went in the wrong direction, but I do want to highlight to my colleagues that this is still a problem. Uh, roughly 7% of the cars on our roads in the state of Utah are uninsured. That means if somebody hits you, just a random car hits you, causes an accident, damages your proper property, there is about a one in 17 chance that that car is not insured. And that you're gonna have to deal with that. If, if you have uninsured motorist coverage, which you are paying for, you can get some reimbursement for …

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill and I think just want to be clearer as to what the objective is. This is about advertised pricing bait and switch. So when I'm shopping online for a hotel and I'm comparing a night in a hotel, this one's 140, this one's 130, this one's 160. What I don't want to choose is the lowest priced one. And then show up at the hotel only to find out that there's an additional $60 resort fee or some sort of a, a amenities fee. And I said, well, I don't want that. And they'll say, sorry, that's a required fee, and they should have told me upfront that it …

Thank you. Uh, could you just explain to me, um, so a lot of utility bills are not accruing to the owner of the property. They're accruing, accruing to renters. So how, could you just explain to us how this would work? In the case that the delinquency is actually not the owner of the property, but it is a renter, Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. My understanding is that in our state law, ultimately the property owner has responsibility for, uh, bills, utilities. For that property, it can be put in a renter's name and with the expectation and agreement between the landlord and the renter that they will pay that bill. But ultimately, the property owner …

Okay, thanks Mr. Speaker. So, so my understanding is this is no change in policy from that perspective.