An Act Making Changes To The Connecticut Retirement Security Program.
SB 1221 makes a series of changes to Connecticut’s Retirement Security Program, the state-administered auto-IRA program for private-sector workers whose employers do not offer a retirement plan. The bill updates definitions, expands who can be treated as a covered employee and qualified employer, and aligns parts of the program with federal retirement law changes. It also clarifies that the Comptroller administers the program as successor to the former Retirement Security Authority and may establish investment criteria, fee caps, grievance procedures, and other operating rules.
The bill changes default contribution rules for new participants beginning July 1, 2025, and adds special treatment for workers who customarily receive gratuities. It also requires the Comptroller to offer age-appropriate target-date funds as the default investment option, while allowing other options if a participant affirmatively chooses them. Another change is the addition of a mechanism to receive federal Saver’s Match contributions in an appropriate retirement savings vehicle.
The bill broadens coverage in two notable ways. First, beginning July 1, 2026, it brings certain personal care attendants employed by qualified employers into the program after a shorter employment period. Second, it treats consumers who receive services from personal care attendants under a state-funded program as qualified employers for purposes of the retirement program, while preserving exclusions for the federal government, state, municipalities, and certain other employers. These changes appear designed to extend retirement savings access to workers in home- and community-based care settings.
The enforcement structure is also revised. Instead of allowing civil actions by employees, the Labor Commissioner, or the Comptroller to force enrollment, the bill directs the Comptroller to issue multiple notices of noncompliance and then assess civil penalties for employers that fail to enroll covered employees or transmit contributions. Penalties vary by employer size, with higher maximums for larger employers. The bill also authorizes the Comptroller to adopt regulations to implement these changes.
Overall, the bill was approved by substantial majorities in both chambers, suggesting broad support for expanding and modernizing the retirement program. The main points of contention likely centered on the expanded employer coverage, the inclusion of personal care attendants and consumer-employers, and the shift from private enforcement to an administrative penalty process. The vote margins indicate some legislative concern about the scope of the mandate and compliance burden, but not enough to prevent passage.
SB 1221 amends Connecticut General Statutes sections governing the Connecticut Retirement Security Program, including sections 31-416, 31-418, 31-423, and 31-425. It changes eligibility definitions, default contribution rules, investment options, and enforcement procedures, and it authorizes the Comptroller to implement federal retirement-law provisions and adopt regulations. The bill expands the program’s reach to certain personal care attendants and consumer-employers in state-funded care arrangements, while replacing prior civil-action enforcement language with an administrative notice-and-penalty system for noncompliant employers.
The bill appears to have been generally favorable in the legislature, as reflected by its joint favorable committee vote and strong passage in both the Senate and House. The overall tone of the legislation is modernization and expansion of retirement savings access, especially for workers without employer-sponsored plans. At the same time, the recorded opposition suggests some lawmakers were uneasy about the program’s expansion, compliance obligations, and administrative enforcement approach.
The main areas of contention were likely the expansion of the program to personal care attendants and consumers receiving state-funded care, the automatic/default contribution changes, and the replacement of direct civil enforcement with Comptroller-issued notices and penalties. Employers and legislators concerned about regulatory burden may have objected to the broader definition of qualified employer and the new compliance framework, while supporters likely emphasized retirement access, program consistency with federal law, and stronger administrative enforcement.