Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Pensions Retirement Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves substitute to raise COLA for certain public-safety retirees by reallocating insurance-premium revenue
Summary
The House passed first substitute House Bill 240 on Feb. 14, 2006, reallocating portions of existing motor-vehicle insurance premium tax revenue to the public-safety retirement fund to support a higher cost-of-living adjustment. Debate focused on fiscal impact (estimated $9–10 million fiscal note), local government effects, and funding equity; the bill passed 69–6 and was referred to the Senate.
The Utah House approved a substitute version of House Bill 240 on Feb. 14, a measure intended to address inequities in annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) for certain retired law-enforcement personnel by shifting existing premium-tax revenue into the public-safety retirement fund.
Representative David Clark, sponsor of the bill, told members the measure seeks to bring a remaining group of retired law-enforcement employees closer to the 4 percent COLA other groups receive. Clark said the change would be funded not through a new tax but by reallocating portions of existing funds derived from insurance premium taxes and previously set-aside amounts.
Floor debate centered on the bill’s fiscal mechanics and local-government impacts. Several members warned the reallocation would impose a fiscal burden on local governments, while sponsors and supporters argued the change is a re-prioritization of existing revenue rather than a new levy. Representatives on the floor cited a fiscal-note range frequently described in debate as between $9 million and $10 million; the sponsor later suggested total costs could exceed that estimate.
Representative Dougal and others pressed for a formal fiscal note before final action; Representative Clark and supporters argued the House needed to make the policy choice. Representative Bowman declared a conflict of interest, noting his previous employment with the highway patrol.
After substitute motions and multiple procedural votes, the House approved the first substitute and passed the bill on final passage; the clerk announced the tally as 69 yes votes and 6 no votes. The bill was referred to the Senate for further consideration.
Supporters framed the bill as addressing an equity issue for public-safety retirees; critics warned of an ongoing fiscal commitment and urged clarity about local government contributions and the full fiscal impact.
