Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Post Retirement Employment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Senate rejects bill easing limits on rehiring retirees after extended fiscal debate

Utah State Senate · March 7, 2016
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Senate Bill 36, which would have eased post‑retirement employment restrictions for public safety and school employees and included an amendment requiring updated fiscal notes, failed on the floor after extended debate about URS liabilities and workforce shortages in rural areas.

The Utah Senate debated Senate Bill 36 at length before ultimately voting the bill down. The measure proposed narrowing the prohibition on reemploying retirees in certain public safety, fire and school jobs and included language about employer contributions and return‑to‑service windows.

Floor debate focused on two competing concerns: proponents emphasized acute workforce shortages in rural communities and the difficulty of filling certain public safety and education positions; opponents pointed to long‑term pension funding and the risk of increasing the State’s unfunded actuarial liability.

Senator Weiler, who described a proposed amendment, framed amendment number 1 as a transparency and accountability change that would require updated fiscal notes reflecting the Utah Retirement Systems’ actuarial impacts. Floor statements referenced specific fiscal estimates in the bill’s fiscal analysis: a projected $2.6 million annual reduction in contributions to the unfunded liability and an increase in unfunded actuarial accrued liability estimated in floor discussion at roughly $41.8 million; local government and school system impacts were discussed as well.

Supporters said amendment 1 made the bill fiscally responsible by prompting a new fiscal note and clarifying employer costs; detractors said it still risked ‘‘clawing back’’ reforms that had reduced double‑dipping and might undermine long‑term funding. Senators debated how much of the cost employers versus the state would bear and whether the change would disproportionately benefit a small group while reducing funds available for salary increases.

After the amendment was adopted, the Senate voted on final passage. Senate Bill 36 failed on the floor, with a recorded tally of 10 yeas, 17 nays and 2 absent. The bill will be filed.