Transcript Highlights:

• We have one contract renewal and amendment for property valuation services. >> Any qu? >> Yes, sir.
• 32.960> amendment<00:27:33.440> for<00:27:33.760> property<00:27:34.159> valuation
• and amendment for property valuation and amendment for property valuation services. services. services

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The result of this loss is $174 million of assessed valuation, a 32% amount of my entire tax valuation
• The result of this loss is $174 million of assessed valuation, a 32% amount of my entire tax valuation
• Those three properties represent $75 million, or 14 percent... ...of my total tax valuation.

Bills: SB434, SB844, SB898, SB1177, SB1214, SB1454, SB1920, SB1927, SB1935, SB1965, SB2010, SB2046, SB2068, SB2073, SB2183, SB2260, SB3034, SB907

Keywords: SB 434, Harris County Hospital District, hospital district police, peace officers, commissioned officers, law enforcement authority, Health and Safety Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, public safety, hospital security, county hospital district, local government, Texas criminal procedure, district police, armed security, SB 898, low income housing tax credits, LIHTC, affordable housing, Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs

Summary: The committee heard several bills dealing with local government authority, homeowners associations, hospital district policing, school AED inspections, special district annexation, public contracting penalties, and guaranteed income programs. Senate Bill 2073 by Sen. Zaffirini would clarify that appraisal districts may finance purchases, leases, or construction of real property for appraisal offices without prior approval from taxing units; it was supported by the Texas Association of Appraisal Districts and left pending. Senate Bill 1935 by Sen. Hinojosa would increase homeowner control of property owners association boards, require more transparency, limit fines and assessment increases, and require accessible meeting locations; HOA and builder representatives opposed it, arguing it would hinder maintenance and make dues harder to manage, and the bill was left pending. Senate Bill 434 by Sen. Miles would authorize Harris County Hospital District police officers, was supported by Harris Health, and was left pending. Senate Bill 1177 by Sen. Alvarado, as substituted, would require school AED inspections during fire inspections and reporting to school leadership; it was left pending. Senate Bill 1214 by Sen. Perry would update Concho County Hospital District law to align with current procurement and notice rules; it was left pending. Senate Bill 1965 by Sen. Middleton, for Sen. King, would tighten notice and proximity rules for special district annexations; district witnesses warned the bill could interfere with service to noncontiguous tracts, and the bill was left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 2046 by Sen. Bettencourt, which would increase criminal penalties for county purchasing act violations involving unauthorized separate or sequential purchases to evade competitive bidding, and create a tiered penalty structure based on contract amount. Former Harris County DA Kim Ogg, Deputy Attorney General Josh Reno, and James Quintero supported the bill, citing recent Harris County bid-rigging cases and arguing the current Class C misdemeanor penalty is too weak to deter misconduct; some members questioned whether the proposed thresholds were too low and whether stronger oversight, rather than higher penalties alone, would be more effective. The bill was left pending. Finally, Senate Bill 2010 by Sen. Bettencourt would bar counties and other political subdivisions from operating guaranteed income programs and address constitutional gift-clause concerns. Testimony split sharply: Ogg and Quintero argued such programs are unconstitutional, can be used for political data collection, and should not be funded with public money, while Paige Terry Barry defended the bill as protecting taxpayers and discouraging dependency. Senators also debated whether the state can restrict use of federal grant funds and whether local governments should be allowed to run such programs; the bill was left pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the bill converts that valuation and the bill converts that into<01:33:05.000> a<01:33:05.199
• The only allocation you're talking about is the determination based on the equalized valuation adjustment
• adjustment to the dollar 12 valuation adjustment to the dollar 12 correct<01:43:36.960> Statewide
• on what the equalized valuation on what the equalized valuation adjustment<01:44:29.360> does
• <01:47:02.560> is equalized valuation is equalized valuation is identical<01:47:04.760>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met in executive session and first took up HB 193, which limits the maximum credits per course eligible for the Dual and Concurrent Enrollment Program. Representative Ladd said the bill clarifies that eligible courses may not exceed four credits and was requested by the community college system. Representative Earth offered an amendment to make the bill effective on passage, which the committee adopted 18-0. The committee then approved HB 193 as amended by an 18-0 OTPA vote and placed it on the consent calendar. The committee next retained HB 295, concerning School Building Aid program funds, after Representative Spillsbury said the building aid bills were complex and needed more work. The motion to retain passed 18-0, with the chair explaining that retained bills can be revisited later and that related language could be moved among building aid bills. HB 354 was not acted on because the chair said the Department of Education and others had suggested possible changes that should be worked out first. HB 366, another school building aid bill, was also retained 18-0 for the same reasons as HB 295. The committee then considered HB 494, which funds the math learning communities program. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program, reducing the proposed increase by a net $50,000 and keeping funding at current levels for the biennium. After discussion about budget pressures and the program’s role in supporting math instruction and professional development, the amendment passed 18-0, and the bill as amended was approved 18-0 and placed on consent. Finally, the committee took up HB 515, which would repeal charter public school eligibility for state school building aid. Representative Popovici-Muller moved inexpedient to legislate, arguing charter schools should not be treated differently from other public schools, while Representatives Luno and Damon opposed the motion, saying charter schools differ in governance and financial risk and should not receive limited state building aid. The motion failed 10-8, so HB 515 was sent to the regular calendar. The committee assigned Representative Damon to the minority report and Representative Popovici-Muller to the majority report, with a noon deadline the next day. The committee then began HB 716, an appropriation for the dual and concurrent enrollment program. Representative Ladd described the program as a successful affordability measure that saves families money and supports college access. Representative Earth offered an amendment to flat-fund the program at current levels, reducing the proposed increase by $500,000 in each year of the biennium. Shannon Reed of the Community College System said the change could limit enrollment or the number of funded courses, though students could still take additional courses at their own expense. Representative Ladd explained the program’s tuition structure and said the funding would help meet demand; the transcript cuts off before the final vote on HB 716.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's just they're not following, um, they're not adhering to the valuation. 1.5, hold that dollar amount
• So, yeah, yeah, and definitely appreciate that... valuation. 1.5, hold that dollar amount and release

Summary: The committee held an interim study on retainage in public construction projects, with representatives from the Associated General Contractors of Oklahoma, the Subcontractors Association of Oklahoma, and construction firms discussing how retainage works and whether current law should be changed. AGC speakers said retainage is a statutory tool that helps ensure completion and closeout, and warned that eliminating it could create more problems by shifting leverage to owners or general contractors and leaving contractors with fewer remedies. Subcontractor representatives said retainage often functions as delayed profit, can tie up cash flow for one to two years, and can be especially burdensome for early-phase trades such as dirt work, concrete, and demolition. Several participants explained that retainage is typically withheld from monthly progress payments and paid at final closeout, with current law generally allowing retainage to drop from 5% to 2.5% after 50% completion on public projects. Subcontractors said that in practice they often still have to fight to get the reduced rate applied, and that some owners or construction managers do not follow the statute consistently. They also noted that bonding companies are a last resort but still an important enforcement tool, while AGC cautioned that bond claims and litigation are not ideal substitutes for a workable retainage process. The discussion focused on possible benchmarks or compromise approaches, including line-item or trade-specific release of retainage when work is complete, especially for demolition or other early-finish subcontractors. Committee members emphasized that owner, GC/CM, and subcontractor issues may need different solutions and that the study was intended to gather perspectives rather than produce immediate legislation. No vote was taken, and no formal action was announced.

Transcript Highlights:

• Page 26: every two years, NHRS has our actuary do a detailed actuarial valuation, and they calculate
• And as a result of this valuation, that's used to set our employer rates, which have to be sufficient
• Page 26: every two years, NHRS has our actuary do a detailed actuarial valuation, and they calculate
• And as a result of this valuation, that's used to set our employer rates, which have to be sufficient
• future and as a result of this valuation future and as a result of this valuation that's<04:01:49.000

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held an orientation for new and returning members of the House committee on agencies and administration, with introductions from members and staff. Chair Carol Maguire outlined her expectations for hearings: keep questions focused on the bill, be respectful to witnesses, and use the committee’s orientation opportunities to learn about the jail staff, retirement system, and Office of Professional Licensure. Members also discussed related assignments on other bodies, including the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules and the Joint Committee on Employee Classification, and noted that some members already serve on those panels. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the State Building Code and the committee’s upcoming workload. Members explained how the state code is intended to provide a common baseline while allowing limited local options, and why municipalities must formally adopt and publish any local amendments. They reviewed several anticipated bills: a consolidation bill to gather building-code enforcement materials in one place, a bill to update the state energy code, a bill to restrict municipal adoption of building-code changes, and a bill to update the electrical code. Members also discussed how building codes apply to older homes and commercial buildings, and why code updates are important for safety and clarity. The chair said the committee had 36 bills currently scheduled, including many early bills that must move by March 6 because they will be heard by two committees. She said the committee would use subcommittees for harder bills, with three subcommittees this year: pensions, licensing, and likely state building code. She also outlined the hearing schedule, including lighter bills on February 12 and the expectation of executive sessions later in the month. No votes were taken during the orientation, but members were told that public hearings do not require a quorum and that hard copies of bills would be distributed by committee staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• documented hundreds of pages of operational failures to include arbitrary rejections, inflated valuations
• just kind of across the board, we're seeing a pattern of discriminatory enforcement, inconsistent valuations

Summary: The Legislative Auditing Committee heard several local-government audit requests and unanimously approved each one. The first item was Baker County, where county commissioners asked for an operational and financial audit because of repeated late audits, concerns about the finance office, and lack of confidence in county financial reporting. The county clerk supported an audit but argued it should be countywide and include all constitutional officers; she also described a dispute over access to the county finance system and pending litigation. After brief questions, the committee adopted a 9-0 motion directing the Auditor General to perform an operational audit of Baker County’s financial operations and records, with scope to be finalized during the audit. The committee then approved an audit request for the Concord Estates Community Development District in Osceola County. Senator Arrington said residents alleged excessive board compensation, large unexplained spending, missing financial reports, and refusal to provide records or hold open meetings. Residents and a board member testified about rising assessments, deteriorating amenities, and lack of transparency. The committee voted 10-0 to direct an operational audit of the CDD. It also approved, by 10-0 votes, operational audits of the town of Melbourne Beach, based on allegations of fiscal and operational improprieties and lawsuits that had cost the town more than $150,000, and the city of Apalachicola, where Senator Simon said longstanding water utility failures, grant issues, and consent-order problems warranted review. The final request was for a financial and operational audit of Cape Coral’s Building Department. Representative G. Lombardo said building-fee revenues appeared to be transferred for non-building purposes, permit processing was inconsistent, and the department relied heavily on a private firm while the building official had prior ties to that firm. Industry representatives testified that building funds were being diverted, service levels were suffering, and private-provider inspections were not always reflected in fee reductions. The committee adopted the motion 10-0. After completing all agenda items, the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The other concern that I do have specifically has to do with the valuation of how these lands were acquired
• through the settlement and achieving that $200 million valuation.
• And this increases the valuation threshold of development subject to a special management area minor
• this special management use permit and this increases<00:50:53.640> the<00:50:53.880> valuation
• <00:50:54.680> threshold<00:50:55.559> of increases the valuation threshold of increases

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 534, a measure concerning development in Kakaʻako Makai involving the Hawaii Community Development Authority and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The chairs explained that the hearing was decision-making only and no testimony would be accepted, though members could ask clarifying questions. The chair outlined amendments to clarify HCDA’s approval process, require an environmental impact statement before residential development proposals are submitted, require Department of Health documentation on hazardous substances, and specify that only OHA-owned parcels would be eligible for certain residential development with a 400-foot height limit and maximum floor area ratio of 10.0. The amendments also addressed affordability, owner-occupancy, association fees, and a special fund, while noting Attorney General concerns that the fee could be construed as a tax and suggesting further review by Judiciary and Ways and Means. Members discussed the affordability threshold, with one senator suggesting 160% AMI instead of 140% due to high housing costs and concern that essential workers could be priced out. Others raised concerns about Native Hawaiian affordability, the long-term effect of perpetuity restrictions, and whether the process would protect OHA’s interests. An HCDA representative said 140% AMI was used in existing reserve housing rules and that lower thresholds could make development economically infeasible. OHA and other supporters said the proposal was still early in planning and emphasized the need for public hearings, community input, and compliance with environmental and remediation standards. The committees voted to pass SB 534 with amendments: Water and Land approved it 4-1, and Hawaiian Affairs also adopted the chair’s recommendation, with one member excused and one voting no. The meeting then moved to SB 3, relating to water resource management. The bill would authorize the Commission on Water Resource Management to retain independent legal counsel, create an executive director position, allow challenges to emergency orders under certain conditions, establish fines for water use offenses, and revise emergency and shortage declaration procedures; Red Hill-related provisions were noted as removed from this version. Testimony was largely supportive, including from DLNR, the Board of Water Supply, OHA, and Sierra Club, with OHA stressing the measure’s importance to Native Hawaiian water rights and past litigation. A Department of Hawaiian Home Lands representative supported the bill with amendments and recommended explicit language directing the commission chair or designee to advocate for water rights and reservations for homelands. The chair indicated the committees would use the prior Senate-passed version as the basis for further action, and the discussion then moved on to SB 130, a search-and-rescue reimbursement bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so basically the extraordinary needs grant was based on two things: one, the equalized valuation
• They won't gain the extra 10. valuation alone. So basically the low valuation alone.
• but still have a equalized valuation but still have a significant<01:19:20.960> number<01:19:
• of a low equaliz equalized valuation. of a low equaliz equalized valuation.
• as much as it's equalized valuation as much as it's about<01:19:41.440> the<01:19:41.679>

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It establishes a valuation limit, and this was a little bit challenging for me to understand, so I'm
• going to let my expert witness explain that, but The storage units want to be able to set a valuation
• So, the valuation limit is actually beneficial for the storage unit, and it also sets some standards

Transcript Highlights:

• from our actuaries for HB 2 is actually the valuation they did earlier this year for HB 727.
• from the actuary uh updated valuation from the actuary uh this<00:05:56.880> week<00:05:57.880
• And our current valuation with the actuary, we told them to assume it was a mistake. ...at it in the
• And our current valuation with the actuary, we told them to assume it was a mistake.
• And our current valuation with the actuary, we told them to assume it was a mistake.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 provisions affecting the New Hampshire Retirement System, focusing on Group 2/Tier B retirement changes in pages 25 through 39 of the bill. NHRS Executive Director Jan Goodwin and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions and to HB 727, with the main difference being that the 2025 version does not include the earlier increase in the maximum benefit. They also said the fiscal note for HB 2 is based on earlier actuarial work and that an updated valuation was expected later in the week. A major topic was whether the bill accidentally removed an anti-spiking or special-duty compensation limit. NHRS said the omission appears to be a scrivener’s error caused by moving language between Group 1 and Group 2 definitions, and they planned to flag it in the fiscal note. Members also reviewed the bill’s intent to restore Tier B members to pre-2011 benefit rules, including changes to earnable compensation, average final compensation, and the comp-over-base rule. Some members questioned whether restoring those older rules was appropriate, arguing the 2011 changes were meant to curb pension spiking and that undoing them could be problematic. The committee also discussed the bill’s cost and funding assumptions. NHRS said the 2025 bill would reduce unfunded actuarial liability by about $98.2 million and would have a more favorable effect than the 2023 version, while employer contribution impacts would remain relatively small. Members noted the bill assumes annual appropriations of $27.5 million for 10 years, but House Bill 1 currently provides only $5 million in the first year, and NHRS had not yet analyzed the effect of that shortfall. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the discussion was informational and focused on clarifying the bill’s language, intent, and fiscal impact.

Transcript Highlights:

• when when we've property valuations when when we've already<02:40:35.800> heard<02:40:36.240>
• The equalized valuation of a town revalued one year ago is not comparable to that of a town revalued
• of a town raled the equalized valuation of a town raled one<04:39:09.480> year<04:39:09.719><
• inconsistencies and equalized valuation inconsistencies and equalized valuation but<04:41:45.680
• valuation um um and um that could be we valuation um um and um that could be we could<04:42:31.600>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• It expands a special method of valuation for electric plant property that has been in use for a while
• We are lumping storage with transmission and distribution for property tax valuation here.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The next value is the total property valuation across the state.
• And the final one is the property valuation per pupil.
• uh property valuation across the state. uh property valuation across the state.
• So you can see for valuation per pupil.
• and the number of kids which valuation and the number of kids which are<05:03:50.320> qualifying<

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , relatively lower equalized valuation, relatively lower equalized valuation, which<01:55:39.360>
• Maybe would there equalize valuation per pupil? Maybe not.
• <03:40:00.239> per<03:40:00.560> pupil the um the equalized valuation per pupil the
• um the equalized valuation per pupil at<03:40:01.200> the<03:40:01.439> municipality<03
• <03:40:11.439> per Maybe would there equalize valuation per Maybe would there equalize valuation

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• AB 2181 is a narrow clarification that ensures that density bonus potential can only be used in valuations
• AB 2181 can only be used in valuations for hotels and motels when it is real, approved, and vested.
• AB 2181 provides a simple guardrail where density bonus can only be considered in valuation when it is
• That will ensure housing incentives remain tied to real projects and valuations reflect legally permissible
• It prevents speculative valuation practices, and it keeps housing policy tied to actual production.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, for example, in the latest valuation and projection report, it includes the $110 million from a few
• We do an annual valuation that does that each year, along with the projection.
• <00:13:31.120> projection the latest valuation and projection the latest valuation and projection
• We do<00:13:46.000> an<00:13:46.240> annual<00:13:46.480> valuation<00:13:47.200
• do an annual valuation that does that each<00:13:48.160> year<00:13:48.320> along<00:13

Keywords: Finance - Room 216, 20 January, 2026; 10:30 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee heard an update from PERS Executive Director Higgins, who reported that the system has about $38 billion in assets, earned roughly 11.7% last fiscal year, and is about 57% funded. He thanked lawmakers for a newly passed $1 billion funding bill and emphasized that funding the existing system remains the top priority. Higgins also noted that the board’s actuarially recommended contribution is about 26% of payroll, while the system is currently receiving about 18.4%, and said PERS will return later in session with a few requested bills. Higgins addressed several policy topics under discussion this session, including return-to-work rules, first responders, and Tier 5. He said return-to-work changes are possible if the law is changed and funding implications are addressed. For first responders, he said any special treatment should be done within PERS rather than by creating a separate system, with the affected group and parameters clearly defined and fully funded. He also said the new Tier 5 hybrid plan is being implemented on track for March 1 and is projected to improve the system’s long-term financial position by reducing future liabilities and helping pay down the unfunded liability. Members then questioned Higgins about the system’s funding policy, the 30-year closed amortization period used in the ADC calculation, and whether that approach should be revisited in light of recent funding actions and changes in assumptions. Higgins said the board reviews the policy annually, that the closed amortization approach was chosen to better pay down the unfunded liability, and that the annual valuation and experience studies already incorporate recent funding changes, Tier 5, and the phased employer-rate increases. He acknowledged that a significant new infusion of funding could justify reviewing the amortization period, but cautioned against changing it too often because it could undermine progress toward paying down the unfunded liability.

Transcript Highlights:

• The valuation exclusion amounts have not been increased in the 17 years that this program has been in
• These figures demonstrate the urgent need to increase the valuation amounts of the disabled veterans
• disability rating the valuation disability rating the valuation exclusion<01:13:52.800> amounts
• <01:14:30.080> to<01:14:30.360> increase<01:14:31.199> the<01:14:31.520> valuation
• urgent need to increase the valuation urgent need to increase the valuation amounts<01:14:32.960

Bills: HF169, HF195, HF194, HF1756, HF2133

Keywords: HF169, Minnesota insurance, health plan, summary of benefits and coverage, SBC, patient assistance program, deductible, health insurer, consumer disclosure, out-of-pocket costs, medical assistance funds, copay assistance, health coverage transparency, chapter 62Q, enrollee, HF195, Fairmont, street reconstruction, bonding bill, capital investment

Transcript Highlights:

• Sandoval County protested it, so we ended up going to the valuation trial.
• The valuation protest board issued a favorable decision that the land grant should not pay taxes on those
• Neal County Valuation Protest Board that decided in favor of the Chihuly land grant on the issue of taxation
• You file it in the one year, and then every year subsequent to that, the county will still issue a valuation

Transcript Highlights:

• owner in two places, line 10 on my copy and on lines 19 and 20 on my copy related to the 5-year valuation
• 19 and 20 on my copy related to the 19 and 20 on my copy related to the 5-year<02:15:02.079> valuation
• <02:15:03.599> In<02:15:03.840> both<02:15:04.079> places, 5-year valuation
• In both places, 5-year valuation notice.

Keywords: 9:30am HB 557 11am HB 71, 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference first discussed House Bill 557, which concerns information on the school budget ballot. The main issue was how to define and calculate the “average cost per pupil.” House members favored a simple calculation dividing the operating budget by enrollment, arguing that it is clearer to the public and matches how taxpayers think about school costs. Senate members preferred the existing RSA-based definition for consistency across statutes and noted that the current definition was about to take effect. Members also debated whether the ballot language should specify the figure as being for the “preceding year,” and some House members ultimately agreed to that clarification while one member did not. After discussion, the Senate declined to move off its position on the calculation method, but agreed to a compromise amendment adding “for the preceding year” to the Senate language so it would align with the rest of the ballot information. The committee then agreed to draft the report with that amendment. The committee then turned to House Bill 71, dealing with restrictions on using public school and higher education facilities to shelter certain migrants, along with a Senate-added provision requiring DHHS contracts to comply with the patient bill of rights. Members generally said they supported the base policy of the bill, but Representative Noble raised a drafting concern about a repeal section that appeared to undo the new contract requirement; the group discussed removing that repeal language and adjusting effective dates. The committee also reviewed Senate-added language creating a donation fund for a proposed accessible pier at Hampton Beach. Supporters said the project would be privately funded through donations, with the state park division managing the fund and any remaining balance eventually transferring to an existing state park donations account if the pier is not built. Members questioned maintenance costs, fundraising responsibility, and whether the account was necessary, but the Senate explained the fund was intended to provide a mechanism for private fundraising and future maintenance support.

Transcript Highlights:

• The response was that the valuation of the company ultimately affects the valuation of the pensions,
• The response was that the valuation of the company ultimately affects the valuation of the pensions.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:17 Attendance Roll Call: 00:41 Approval of Minutes: 02:40 HB 694: 03:16 SB 183: 18:32 Discussion on PPOB Membership: 36:10 Adjournment: 42:35, 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its January 27 meeting and then took up House Bill 694, which would create a default rule for the Teachers’ Retirement System health insurance trust fund once it reaches 100% funding, currently anticipated around 2027. The bill would redirect two funding streams now going to the health trust—state payments on behalf of local districts and other employer contributions—into TRS pension benefits if the health fund reaches and maintains full funding. The sponsor said this would add about $154 million annually to TRS pensions and would only serve as a default if no other plan is adopted later. Members asked whether the bill would shift the unfunded liability to teachers or affect employee contributions. The sponsor and staff said it would not shift liability to teachers and would not change the employee contribution; only the employer-side payments would be redirected. Several members asked about the meaning of actuarial 100% funding, whether the fund could fall back below 100%, and whether employee contributions might be reduced in the future. The sponsor said the bill is based on actuarial projections, would revert the money back to the health trust if funding fell below 100%, and does not prevent future legislative or board action. Senator Higdon and others spoke in support of discussing the issue, noting the 2010 shared-responsibility changes and the need for a default approach as full funding is reached. The committee then heard Senate Bill 183, which would amend Kentucky law governing proxy advisers used by retirement systems. The sponsor said the bill would require proxy advisers, when handling shareholder-sponsored proposals, to act solely in the interest of retirement system members and beneficiaries and to provide an economic analysis when voting against a company board’s recommendation. He argued the measure is aimed at proxy advisers such as ISS and Glass Lewis, which he said often advance ESG-related proposals not tied to shareholder value. A guest from APCIA said the bill is meant to distinguish proxy advisers from investment managers and to strengthen the 2023 law by requiring a clearer economic justification for votes that depart from board recommendations. Members asked how proxy advisers differ from other financial advisers, whether Kentucky uses them, and whether the bill would prevent pension funds from investing in companies with ESG factors if those investments are profitable. The sponsor and guest said the bill would not bar such investments; it is intended to regulate proxy voting recommendations, not investment decisions. They described the bill as a proactive measure to reinforce fiduciary responsibility and limit outside proxy influence on pension voting. No final vote on either bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.