Back to Wyoming
Wyoming2014Did Not Pass

HB0041

Emergency Medical Technician Pension Plan

Last scannedOct 19, 2026, 2:19 AM

In one sentence

This bill proposed using a portion of fire insurance premium taxes to fund a pension account for volunteer emergency medical technicians and updating related state laws.

What it does

  • Proposes that 10% of the gross premium tax on fire insurance premiums be deposited into the volunteer EMT pension account.
  • Proposes that 50% of the gross premium tax on fire insurance premiums be deposited into the volunteer firemen's pension account.
  • Changes the timing of tax deposits from monthly to quarterly.
  • Updates legal language to replace the term 'fund' with 'account' in several sections.
  • Allows the pension board to receive gifts, donations, and contributions from individuals, organizations, and local governments.
  • Sets an effective date of July 1, 2014, if the bill had passed.

Who it affects

  • Volunteer emergency medical technicians (EMTs) who participate in the pension plan.
  • The State Treasurer, who handles the tax deposits.
  • The Wyoming Retirement System, which administers the pension account.
  • Insurance companies that pay fire insurance premium taxes in Wyoming.

Limits and unknowns

  • The bill did not pass the Senate and did not become law in the 2014 session.
  • The official text is labeled as a working draft.
  • The bill does not specify the exact dollar amount of the tax, only the percentage.

Plain language

Terms to know

Gross premium tax
A tax levied upon fire insurance premiums paid to insurance companies.
Volunteer EMT pension account
A specific account within the trust and agency fund established to pay pensions and benefits for volunteer emergency medical technicians.
Service credit
A one-time purchase of up to five years of service time that a member may elect to make to increase their pension benefits.

Official record

Sources

Source checked

Public statements

Why lawmakers voted

Last checked Aug 7, 6:36 AM

Voted No

Why they voted this way

The speaker argues that EMTs are not highly paid with limited revenue to fund pensions, believing local entities should be primarily responsible rather than creating a state general fund obligation. They also express concern that this sets a bad precedent for other employee groups seeking similar state coverage.

Public statementFloor statement at 11:49 Watch the statement

Cale Case

R · S25

Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it sets a bad precedent by having the state pay retirement contributions for county employees and earmarks insurance premiums, which conceals costs from the general fund.

Public statementFloor statement at 12:11 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker votes no because past similar funding mechanisms have caused financial binds, and this bill lacks cost controls with an uncertain number of participants.

Public statementFloor statement at 15:25 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill as a necessary incentive for rural emergency response, arguing it provides peace of mind and does not set an unfair precedent compared to existing city bailouts.

Public statementFloor statement at 17:49 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill as a poorly designed 'hodgepodge' that should be studied by a committee to create a proper statewide program before funding.

Public statementFloor statement at 23:53 Watch the statement
Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker votes no because the state should not accept responsibility for county employee benefits when localities receive substantial tax revenue to prioritize their own needs.

Public statementFloor statement at 24:45 Watch the statement
Voted Yes

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker supports the bill as the most economical way to maintain a statewide system for uncovered EMTs, warning that rejecting it will result in higher costs later.

Public statementFloor statement at 27:34 Watch the statement

Larry Hicks

R · S11

Voted No

Why they voted this way

The lawmaker opposes the bill due to concerns that aggressive marketing of pension benefits could rapidly escalate costs by including individuals with minimal participation.

Public statementFloor statement at 29:19 Watch the statement

If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.

Wyoming roll calls

Recorded votes

5 roll calls

S Failed 3rd Reading 11-17-0-0-22014-02-26 · Senate11 yes 17 no
S02 Recommended Do Pass 3-2-0-0-02014-02-20 · Senate3 yes 2 no
H Passed 3rd Reading 57-2-1-0-02014-02-17 · House57 yes 2 no
H02 Recommended Do Pass 7-0-0-0-02014-02-12 · House7 yes 0 no
H Introduced and Referred to H02 55-5-0-0-02014-02-11 · House55 yes 5 no

Official activity

Bill history

  1. S Failed 3rd ReadingSenate
  2. S Passed 2nd ReadingSenate
  3. S Passed CoWSenate
  4. S Placed on General FileSenate
  5. S02 Recommended Do PassSenate
  6. S Introduced and Referred to S02Senate
  7. S Received for IntroductionSenate
  8. H Passed 3rd ReadingHouse
  9. H Passed 2nd ReadingHouse
  10. H Passed CoWHouse
  11. H Placed on General FileHouse
  12. H02 Recommended Do PassHouse
  13. H Introduced and Referred to H02House
  14. H Received for IntroductionHouse
  15. Bill Number AssignedLSO