House approves workforce-and-firefighter funding bill using unclaimed-property trust fund despite objections

The House adopted House Bill 10‑78 on third reading and final passage by a vote of 37–27 with one excused after a contentious floor debate over funding sources. The vote followed a failed motion to refer the bill to the Committee on Finance.

Representative Gonzales (Representative Gonzales) raised a point of order and motion to refer the bill back to finance after learning an appropriations amendment proposed drawing money from the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund. Representative Titone supported the referral, saying the amount drawn merited fuller committee review; the motion to refer failed 28–37.

Much of the public debate focused on whether the Unclaimed Property Trust Fund is an appropriate revenue source. Representative Tigert argued the unclaimed property fund “is not our money” and said the fund has been drawn down repeatedly; he cited figures presented by the State Treasurer’s office indicating the fund has historically been used for budget holes and that roughly $800 million had already been tapped from a fund with $1.2–$1.4 billion in total holdings. Representative Kelty described constituents who found substantial amounts in unclaimed property and said taking the fund’s assets for spending is equivalent to taking money that already belongs to citizens. Representative Bottoms described locating several entries for his own family and warned that the fund holds people’s property.

Supporters, including Speaker Pro Tem Besenacker, framed the bill as a practical response to firefighter and wildfire needs. Besenacker said the bill would rehabilitate fire stations and provide equipment and housing that fire districts lack; he cited a $70 million funding shortfall for some fire protection districts and said deposit flows into the unclaimed-property fund remain substantial (the transcript records a FY23 deposit figure of $201 million). Besenacker said the fund has not faced insolvency even with prior transfers and argued the bill represents a commitment to public safety.

Representative DeGraaf and others cautioned about precedent and sustainability, listing prior uses of the unclaimed property fund and warning transfers had sometimes been repaid on IOUs. Representative Tigert also raised concerns that some grant recipients would receive funds at a zero rate of return while the state extracted principal from the fund.

Floor action: A motion to refer HB10‑78 to the Finance Committee failed (28 yes, 37 no). After extended debate the House approved the bill on third reading and final passage (37 yes, 27 no, 1 excused).

Ending: Sponsors argued the measure would quickly supply equipment and capacity to rural and volunteer fire districts. Opponents said the funding choice raises property-rights and long-term solvency concerns because the unclaimed-property fund contains amounts tied to named individuals and organizations and has been used in prior sessions to cover budget shortfalls.