Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Employee Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves option to convert sick leave at retirement after debate over fiscal-note treatment
Summary
Senate substitute Bill 138 passed after sponsors said the measure simply gives state employees more options for converting accrued sick leave (cash, 401(k), or insurance purchase) while debate focused on an updated estimated fiscal impact of about $304,000 borne by agencies, not new statewide appropriations.
The Utah Senate on Feb. 9 approved Substitute Senate Bill 138, which expands options for state employees to use converted sick leave at retirement. Under the bill employees could convert accrued sick days into cash, deposit proceeds into retirement accounts such as a 401(k), or use the value to purchase insurance for themselves or a spouse.
Senator Bueller, the sponsor, reported an updated fiscal estimate indicating an estimated cost of approximately $304,000 from existing agency funds when employees exercise the option; she and other senators emphasized that the fiscal impact would be borne by individual agencies and would not require new statewide appropriations. That estimate prompted extended floor discussion about whether the change constitutes a new benefit that requires a fiscal-note priority, or whether it merely redirects funds agencies already hold.
"It is estimated that cost of these benefits would be $304,000 from all funding sources, which would come out of existing agency budgets," the sponsor said on the floor. Senators raised procedural questions and concerns about accounting and whether similar options in other states trigger different accounting treatments; proponents said the change gives employees flexibility without requiring additional state funding.
After discussion the Senate called the question and passed the substitute bill; the transcript records the vote as 27 aye votes, no nay votes, and 2 absent.
Next steps: The bill advances to the House. The Senate requested that the fiscal‑note language or explanation be clarified so house staff and members understand whether any net new cost is required and how agencies will account for expenditures.
