Transcript Highlights:

• </c> our employee and employer contributions. our employee and employer contributions.
• Um, it was below actually the employee contribution rates.
• <01:01:49.680><c> uh,</c> below actually the employee uh, below actually the employee uh, contribution
• Um, so the employee contributions by 1%.
• </c><01:08:57.279><c> employer</c> contributions, so the employee employer contributions, so the employee

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> throughout</c> employee contribution rate throughout employee contribution rate throughout the<00
• And so it reduced employee contribution.
• restricted</c> employee contributions is not restricted employee contributions is not restricted as<
• a refund of their employee contribution to the plan.
• Do... they make up the employee contributions they make up the employee contributions and<02:17:01.120

Transcript Highlights:

• standards. ...facility allotment program cap by $50 million and expands program eligibility to include employees
• I want to thank Senator Johnson and his staff for their contributions to this process. helping with that
• authorities lack sufficient statutory mechanisms to obtain information from facility operators about their employees
• access to criminal history record information from DPS to evaluate prospective, current, or former employees

Bills: SB393 , SB731 , SB801 , SB867 , SB1232 , SB1798 , SB2082 , SB2717 , SB2919 , SB3074 , HJR133 , HB2 , HB18 , HB24 , HB26 , HB35 , HB43 , HB49 , HB75 , HB 103 , HB 120 , HB 126 , HB143 , HB163 , HB180 , HB216 , HB413 , HB647 , HB700 , HB748 , HB851 , HB1422 , HB1445 , HB1481 , HB1545 , HB1562 , HB1586 , HB1732 , HB1828 , HB1851 , HB1916 , HB1991 , HB2014 , HB2026 , HB2038 , HB2067 , HB2193 , HB2282 , HB2293 , HB2310 , HB2464 , HB2508 , HB2516 , HB2518 , HB2524 , HB2530 , HB2674 , HB2713 , HB2715 , HB2974 , HB3016 , HB3057 , HB3062 , HB3071 , HB3120 , HB3161 , HB3180 , HB3214 , HB3234 , HB3250 , HB3463 , HB3512 , HB3556 , HB3627 , HB3680 , HB3732 , HB3801 , HB3824 , HB3833 , HB3966 , HB4044 , HB4129 , HB4226 , HB4230 , HB4263 , HB4377 , HB4384 , HB4395 , HB4396 , HB4535 , HB4668 , HB4690 , HB4751 , HB4903 , HB5033 , HB5149 , HB5154 , HB5247 , HB5331 , HB5436 , HB5667 , HB5688 , HB5693 , HCR9 , HCR40 , HCR59 , HCR127 , SJR5 , SB3 , SB4 , SB9 , SB20 , SB21 , SB23 , SB27 , SB33 , SB34 , SB36 , SB38 , SB40 , SB75 , SB213 , SB269 , SB379 , SB458 , SB528 , SB647 , SB648 , SB650 , SB681 , SB740 , SB777 , SB840 , SB843 , SB924 , SB1061 , SB1120 , SB1121 , SB1150 , SB1188 , SB1198 , SB1202 , SB1253 , SB1318 , SB1333 , SB1398 , SB1405 , SB1423 , SB1448 , SB1535 , SB1566 , SB1574 , SB1621 , SB1709 , SB1723 , SB1789 , SB1862 , SB2037 , SB2078 , SB2268 , SB2405 , SB2406 , SB2407 , SB2544 , SB2570 , SB2601 , SB2778 , SB1 , SB17 , SB260 , SB509 , SB1506 , SB1637 , SB1833 , SB2155 , SB2308 , HB2525 , SB1538 , SB1749 , SB2603 , SB3038 , SB3062 , SB3065 , HB24 , HB 128 , HB216 , HB388 , HB519 , HB609 , HB685 , HB766 , HB 1237 , HB1314 , HB1445 , HB1458 , HB1522 , HB1592 , HB1606 , HB1612 , HB1633 , HB2011 , HB2025 , HB2061 , HB2259 , HB2273 , HB2358 , HB2421 , HB2434 , HB2464 , HB2518 , HB2563 , HB2637 , HB2697 , HB2713 , HB2791 , HB2856 , HB3114 , HB3126 , HB3161 , HB3233 , HB3395 , HB3424 , HB3487 , HB3505 , HB3510 , HB3597 , HB3745 , HB3803 , HB3804 , HB3806 , HB4224 , HB4310 , HB4396 , HB4738 , HB4945 , HB5084 , HB5155 , HB5180 , HB5667 , HB5686 , HCR9 , HCR10 , HCR135 , HCR142 , SJR36 , SJR50 , SJR63 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SB2023 , SB62 , SB666 , SB847 , SB284 , SB854 , SB810 , SB1505 , SB583 , SB507 , SB1434 , SB1772 , SB2016 , SB1122 , SB731 , SB397 , SB508 , SB1436 , SB287 , SB1882 , SB393 , SB1791 , SB209 , SB2429 , SB1085 , SB1975 , SB2717 , SB1262 , SB636 , SB2056 , SB884 , SB1200 , SB1845 , SB2458 , SB801 , SB3014 , SB3013 , SB758 , SB2797 , SB2076 , SB2876 , SB1640 , SB1449 , SB1181 , SB1234 , SB2926 , SB2841 , SB1528 , SB1854 , SB317 , SB1250 , SB2082 , SB1237 , SB2819 , SB629 , SB2608 , SB1602 , SB2009 , SB867 , SB640 , SB1698 , SB2680 , SB913 , SB1071 , SB1086 , SB1087 , SB1483 , SB1444 , SB1553 , SB1556 , SB1703 , SB2133 , SB2297 , SB2298 , SB2622 , SB2955 , SB2334 , SB1367 , SB2044 , SB2363 , SB2565 , SB1888 , SB3036 , SB3057 , SB3043 , SB3063 , SB3035 , SB203 , SB2688 , SB2522 , SB2459 , SB2655 , SB2251 , SB1884 , SB2928 , SB2566 , SB1749 , SB2549 , SB2553 , SB2919 , SB1944 , SB1232 , SB1798 , SB2603 , SB2607 , SB2683 , SB1319 , SB3038 , SB3045 , SB1538 , SB3071 , SB3065 , SB3062 , HJR133 , HB2715 , HB3627 , HB5033 , HB2282 , HB26 , HB388 , HB1633 , HB685 , HB1606 , HB1458 , HB2791 , HB2061 , HB647 , HB4738 , HB2563 , HB 128 , HB766 , HB2259 , HB2358 , HB4384 , HB748 , HB5180 , HB3806 , HB3804 , HB3803 , HB1522 , HB3597 , HB1612 , HB4224 , HB1314 , HB 1237 , HB3126 , HB2856 , HB3114 , HB3505 , HB5652 , HB2025 , HB3395 , HB18 , HB2516 , HB2713 , HB24 , HB519 , HB609 , HB1592 , HB 120 , HB2421 , HB2273 , HB2464 , HB5084 , HB4396 , HB43 , HB5686 , HB2518 , HB4310 , HB180 , HB3745 , HB4044 , HB5155 , HB5667 , HB1445 , HB 1306 , HB2637 , HB5436 , HB3966 , HB2026 , HB3487 , HB4226 , HB216 , HB49 , HB4112 , HB3233 , HB2310 , HB2674 , HB322 , HB1481 , HB 126 , HB3062 , HB3180 , HB2530 , HB2524 , HB1916 , HB5650 , HB4894 , HB3120 , HB1629 , HB 103 , HB3234 , HB3680 , HB5698 , HB3171 , HB5693 , HB2694 , HB5664 , HB3732 , HB2508 , HB2293 , HB1991 , HB2014 , HB5331 , HB5247 , HB4751 , HB4690 , HB4668 , HB4464 , HB4395 , HB4063 , HB3833 , HB3623 , HB3214 , HB3512 , HB3250 , HB3016 , HB2520 , HB2221 , HB2213 , HB3824 , HB2067 , HB1732 , HB1562 , HB700 , HB1545 , HB252 , HB146 , HB5596 , HB1851 , HB3619 , HB3071 , HB3556 , HB851 , HB4230 , HB5320 , HB5651 , HB5670 , HB5665 , HB5437 , HB5679 , HB5699 , HB5661 , HB5662 , HB5654 , HB5672 , HB5656 , HB5149 , HB4903 , HB4743 , HB4666 , HB4377 , HB4535 , HB4129 , HB3812 , HB3801 , HB3595 , HB3057 , HB2035 , HB721 , HB35 , HB346 , HB2974 , HB2512 , HB5695 , HB5694 , HB5671 , HB5674 , HB5688 , HB1586 , HB5154 , HB2038 , HB163 , HB413 , HB3463 , HB3185 , HB2761 , HB2593 , HB2348 , HB2073 , HB1828 , HB1422 , HB75 , HB1871 , HB 108 , HB2306 , HB2017 , HB 1135 , HB144 , HB3689 , HB5308 , HB 101 , HB2193 , HB5666 , HB5677 , HB5682 , HB5680 , HB5658 , HB5696 , HB4144 , HB3159 , HB3254 , HB3866 , HB3010 , HB4520 , HB3642 , HB3928 , HB3815 , HB2686 , HB2012 , HB1960 , HB227 , HB654 , HB1690 , HB2128 , HB4158 , HB4530 , HB4630 , HB5659 , HB1523 , HB2078 , HB2427 , HB145 , HB1973 , HB3333 , HB3697 , HB3546 , HB3225 , HB3181 , HB3133 , HB3053 , HB2885 , HB2820 , HB2294 , HB2253 , HB1661 , HB1506 , HB 1234 , HB640 , HB621 , HB551 , HB521 , HB493 , HB272 , HB229 , HB223 , HB201 , HB186 , HB 119 , HB2080 , HB2818 , HB5394 , HB4795 , HB4466 , HB4454 , HB3940 , HB3749 , HB3151 , HB3284 , HB1403 , HB 1106 , HB2844 , HB2851 , HB1500 , HB4488 , HB4264 , HB4 , HB4170 , HB3909 , HB4081 , HB4145 , HB4157 , HB4281 , HB4285 , HB4463 , HB4749 , HB4995 , HB5081 , HB5115 , HB5138 , HB5624 , HB1449 , HB3711 , HB2598 , HB3629 , HB4361 , HB824 , HB1868 , HB4848 , HB2243 , HB40 , HB 117 , HB2313 , HB3686 , HB500 , HB3793 , HB 112 , HB 104 , HB 1056 , HB42 , HB4486 , HB3000 , HB 100 , HB2240 , HB718 , HB27 , HB4904 , HB4202 , HB2853 , HB5129 , HB5093 , HB4765 , HB4748 , HB4559 , HB4350 , HB4214 , HB3388 , HB3112 , HB5196 , HB4211 , HB3516 , HB3092 , HB4233 , HB4687 , HB705 , HB 1094 , HB2037 , HB3005 , HB3848 , HCR141 , HCR118 , HCR127 , HCR40 , HCR59 , HCR10 , HCR135 , HCR142 , HCR9 , HCR76 , HCR108 , HJR133 , HB18 , HB35 , HB43 , HB49 , HB75 , HB 103 , HB 120 , HB163 , HB216 , HB413 , HB647 , HB851 , HB1422 , HB1481 , HB1545 , HB1562 , HB1586 , HB1732 , HB1828 , HB1851 , HB1916 , HB1991 , HB2014 , HB2026 , HB2067 , HB2193 , HB2293 , HB2310 , HB2464 , HB2508 , HB2524 , HB2530 , HB2974 , HB3062 , HB3071 , HB3120 , HB3180 , HB3214 , HB3234 , HB3250 , HB3463 , HB3512 , HB3680 , HB3732 , HB3801 , HB3824 , HB3833 , HB4044 , HB4129 , HB4226 , HB4230 , HB4377 , HB4395 , HB4396 , HB4535 , HB4668 , HB4903 , HB5149 , HB5154 , HB5247 , HB5331 , HB5436 , HB5688 , HB5693 , HB2282 , HB2715 , HB3627 , HB5033 , HB2674 , HB3556 , HCR127 , SB3 , SB21 , SB379 , SB1405 , SB1538 , SB1749 , SB3038 , SB3062 , SB3065 , HB24 , HB 128 , HB388 , HB519 , HB609 , HB685 , HB766 , HB 1237 , HB1314 , HB1445 , HB1458 , HB1522 , HB1592 , HB1606 , HB1612 , HB1633 , HB2025 , HB2061 , HB2259 , HB2273 , HB2358 , HB2421 , HB2518 , HB2563 , HB2637 , HB2713 , HB2791 , HB2856 , HB3114 , HB3126 , HB3233 , HB3487 , HB3505 , HB3597 , HB3745 , HB3803 , HB3804 , HB3806 , HB4224 , HB4310 , HB4738 , HB5084 , HB5155 , HB5180 , HB5667 , HB5686 , HCR9 , HCR10 , HCR135 , HCR142 , SB2603 , HB3395 , HB636 , HB5655 , HB5689 , HB5690 , HB636 , HB5655 , HB5689 , HB5690

Keywords: SB 393, Sparks, Middleton, local government, political subdivision, public securities, government debt, municipal bonds, general obligation bonds, certificates of obligation, anticipation notes, debt maturity, weighted average maturity, economic life, useful life, tangible personal property, real property improvements, public finance, Texas Government Code, Chapter 1253

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, no employee or employer contributions are paid during the probationary period.
• </c><00:25:46.960><c> are</c> employee or employer contributions are employee or employer contributions
• portion and the and pay for the employee portion and the employer<00:27:03.039><c> contribution</c><
• pay an employee contribution since they weren’t earning a second retirement account.
• </c> work and they wouldn't pay an employee work and they wouldn't pay an employee contribution<00:45

Summary: The Public Pension Oversight Board met on February 13 and approved the minutes after establishing a quorum. The committee then took up three pension-related bills, beginning with Rep. Callaway’s proposal to allow certain retired police officers with 15 to 19 years of service to be rehired by local law enforcement agencies. Callaway and Brandon Lincoln of the FOP said the bill is intended to help recruitment and retention, especially for departments facing staffing shortages, and emphasized that it would be optional and would not allow double-dipping. Committee members raised concerns that lowering the service threshold from 20 to 15 years could create an unfunded liability and weaken the pension system, and several members said they did not yet fully understand how the pension and insurance provisions would work. The sponsor said she was open to working on the bill, and the chair noted the committee would continue to examine it with help from KPA staff. The second bill, presented by Rep. Lewis with Brandon Lincoln and Jeff Taylor, addressed probationary employees in CS agencies, including firefighters and police officers. The bill would let certain former probationary employees purchase service credit for time spent in probation, and would extend line-of-duty death and disability protections to employees who are injured or killed during probationary service. Testimony said the measure is optional for employers, could be used as a recruitment tool, and would allow employees within six months of the probationary period to buy back the time themselves if they choose. Members generally supported the concept, noted a negligible fiscal note, and discussed whether current employees could buy back older probationary periods; the sponsor said the bill did not appear to allow that, though he was open to further discussion. Throughout both bills, members focused on whether the proposals would create new pension costs or liabilities and how they would interact with existing retirement tiers and contribution rules. Several members asked for clarification on whether rehired workers would contribute to the pension system, whether employers would pay normal cost or any contribution at all, and whether the bills would affect future retirement benefits. The sponsors and witnesses repeatedly said the measures were limited, optional, and intended to address staffing and fairness issues without changing the core retirement system, but the committee did not take final action on the bills during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• A combination of employer and employee contributions toward the pension promise and CalPERS investments
• Section 2029 requires CalPERS to disclose pension liabilities and contribution rates for state employees
• More money would have to come from contributions, and the contribution rates would go up.
• I guess on average, of course, but for employees, as active employees, I assume, and then in that, comparing
• You obviously want your contribution rates to rely on audits.

Transcript Highlights:

• One is the state makes contributions monthly as a percentage of pay. to each on behalf of each employee
• The employee also makes contributions. on their own to the pension plan.
• Just as a note, all state employees contribute both to the pension plan and to Social Security.
• State employees, in addition... into contributing to the pension plan also contribute to Social Security
• You can increase the state contribution, you can increase the member contribution.

Committee: House Pensions, Investments & Financial Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Employees are contributing 15% to pay; the state is contributing 23.1%, and there's a supplemental contribution
• All employers contribute the same contribution rate regardless of the makeup of their employees.
• All employers contribute the same contribution rate regardless of the makeup of their employees.
• All employers contribute the same contribution rate regardless of the makeup of their employees.
• in excess of the employee contributions, and that closed that deficiency.

Transcript Highlights:

• A combination of employer and employee contributions toward the pension promise and CalPERS investments
• Section 2029 requires CalPERS to disclose pension liabilities and contribution rates for state employees
• More money would have to come from the contributions, and the contribution rates would go up.
• That determines the contribution rates for the 25-26 year. Okay. So then, yes.
• You obviously want your contribution rates to rely on audits.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Chair McKinnor and Senator Smallwood-Cuevas opened by emphasizing CalPERS’ importance to retirement security for public employees and to the state budget. Scott Tarando, CalPERS Chief Actuary and a CAP member, presented on the statutory disclosure requirements in Government Code Section 2029, including the use of CalPERS’ 6.8% discount rate and the need to show how changes in investment return assumptions and amortization periods affect liabilities, contribution rates, and budgets. Tarando explained that lower investment returns increase contribution rates and unfunded liabilities, while higher returns reduce them. He also described CalPERS’ 20-year amortization period for new unfunded liabilities, comparing it to a mortgage and noting that shorter periods raise near-term costs but reduce long-term interest costs. He said the CAP has recommended a 15- to 20-year range and that CalPERS’ current approach is intended to smooth volatility for a large, ongoing plan. Members asked about the meaning of average service lifetime, the timing of valuation data, whether more current data could be used, the effect of AI and workforce changes on assumptions, and whether contribution changes affect retiree benefits. Tarando said retiree benefits do not change with annual valuations, that CalPERS uses audited year-end data because it is the most reliable basis for rates, and that AI impacts are being monitored but are too early to quantify. Committee members also discussed CalPERS’ funded status, with Tarando saying it had improved from the mid-60% range about 10 years ago to around 79% at fiscal year-end and over 80% more recently, reducing pressure on employers and the state budget. Michael Cohen, CalPERS’ investment operations chief, said CalPERS had complied with federal information requests and that its annual audits are publicly available, but no formal federal review had been released. In public comment, a representative of the California State Association of Counties praised the improved funded status and the role of PEPRA reforms. The chairs closed by reaffirming CalPERS’ fiduciary duty and the goal of protecting retirement security for public workers; no votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• A combination of employer and employee contributions toward the pension promise and CalPERS investments
• Section 2029 requires CalPERS to disclose pension liabilities and contribution rates for state employees
• More money would have to come from the contributions, and the contribution rates would go up.
• Into the contributions that the state is required to make.
• You obviously want your contribution rates to rely on audits.

Transcript Highlights:

• A combination of employer and employee contributions toward the pension promise and CalPERS investments
• This section requires CalPERS to disclose pension liabilities and contribution rates for state employees
• More money would have to come from the contributions, and the contribution rates would go up.
• contribution rates for the 25-26 year.
• You obviously want your contribution rates to rely on audits.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Opening remarks emphasized CalPERS’ role in providing retirement security for about two million members and the importance of pension funding to the state budget, especially amid economic uncertainty, market volatility, federal policy changes, and concerns about future fiscal pressure. Scott Tarando, CalPERS chief actuary and a CAP member, presented on the statutory disclosure requirements in Government Code Section 2029. He explained that CalPERS’ current discount rate is 6.8%, that lower investment returns increase contribution rates and unfunded liabilities, and that the plan uses a 20-year amortization period for new unfunded liabilities. He said CAP has recommended a reasonable amortization range of 15 to 20 years and that CalPERS’ longer smoothing period helps reduce volatility in employer contributions. He also explained the timing of actuarial data: the valuation used for current contribution rates is based on the prior fiscal year’s audited data, with the next year’s rates developed later in the annual cycle. Members asked about the relationship between average employee service life and amortization, whether current market and AI-related changes could justify using more current data, whether pension benefits change when valuations are updated, and how CalPERS’ funded status has changed over time. Tarando said retiree benefits do not change based on annual valuations, that the system’s funded status has improved from roughly the mid-60% range about a decade ago to around 80% or higher more recently, and that CalPERS is monitoring possible long-term workforce effects from AI but sees no immediate need to change assumptions. Michael Cohen of CalPERS said the system complies with information requests and is independently audited annually, but there has been no formal federal review released. In public comment, a representative of county governments praised the improved funded status and PEPRA reforms. The hearing concluded with remarks reaffirming fiduciary responsibility and the importance of protecting CalPERS beneficiaries.

Transcript Highlights:

• A combination of employer and employee contributions toward the pension promise and CalPERS investments
• Section 2029 requires CalPERS to disclose pension liabilities and contribution rates for state employees
• More money would have to come from contributions, and the contribution rates would go up.
• contribution rates for the 25-26 year.
• You obviously want your contribution rates to rely on audits.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Opening remarks emphasized CalPERS’ role in providing retirement security for roughly two million members and the importance of actuarial assumptions to state budgeting and long-term pension health. Scott Tarando, CalPERS chief actuary and a CAP member, presented the report with Michael Cohen of CalPERS’ investment office available for questions. Tarando explained the statutory disclosure requirements under Government Code Section 2029, including sensitivity analysis around CalPERS’ 6.8% discount rate, and discussed how investment return assumptions and the 20-year amortization period affect contribution rates, unfunded liabilities, and budget volatility. He said shorter amortization periods would raise near-term costs but reduce long-term interest costs, and noted that CalPERS’ current approach is intended to smooth contribution changes over time. He also described the timing of the annual valuation process, explaining that contribution rates for a given fiscal year are based on the most recently audited year-end data and are approved by the board before being used in the budget process. Members asked about the relationship between average employee service life and amortization, whether more current data could be used, the effect of AI and labor-market changes on future assumptions, whether retirees’ benefits change with annual valuations, and CalPERS’ funded status. Tarando said the average expected working lifetime is about 11 to 12 years, while CalPERS uses a 20-year amortization period; he also said retiree benefits are set at retirement and do not change based on later valuations. He estimated CalPERS’ funded status had risen from the mid-60% range about 10 years ago to around 79% at June 30 and above 80% more recently. Cohen said CalPERS had complied with federal information requests and that no formal federal review had been released. During public comment, a county association representative praised the improved funded status and PEPRA reforms. The chairs closed by reiterating fiduciary responsibility and the need to protect CalPERS’ long-term stability, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• It increased contributions from employees and employers.
• This includes employee and employer contributions prior to retirement.
• Our revenue sources are, of course, the employee and the employer contributions.
• members, employees were contributing about 0.5% of their income.
• The current contributions for employees are still at 1% of salary for the employee and 2% for the employer

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• with single coverage, $17,000 for every employee with family coverage, $27,000 for every employee who
• with single coverage, $17,000 for every employee with family coverage, $27,000 for every employee who
• with single coverage, $17,000 for every employee with family coverage, $27,000 for every employee who
• with single coverage, $17,000 for every employee with family coverage, $27,000 for every employee who
• with single coverage, $17,000 for every employee with family coverage, $27,000 for every employee who

Transcript Highlights:

• It's fewer than 50 employees, and 50 employees is very vague.
• $300 an employee.
• or to recruit employees.
• or to recruit employees.
• Per employee. Yes.

Committee: Senate Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• We believe that an increase in employee contributions could be easily offset by the 30% to 50% increases
• We see that members have reluctance to increasing employee contributions, but the overall impact would
• ' contributions, which means the employers picking up their share and another 75% of the employees' share
• . 75% of the employees' contributions, which means the employers picking up their share and another 75%
• not an employee.

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• These employees also contribute 4% of pay to help offset the cost to the employer.
• We are keeping track of them because they are 2011 plan members that have employee contributions, that
• First is the automatic refund of employee contributions to terminated non-vested members with a balance
• First is the automatic refund of employee contributions to terminated non-vested members with a balance
• It takes a combination of contributions. It takes a contribution of the benefits formula.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement held an informational hearing on the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System (MOSERS) to review its long-term financial condition, funding status, investment performance, experience study results, and possible legislation. MOSERS staff explained that the plan is a statutorily created defined benefit system covering state employees, several colleges and quasi-governmental entities, with an 11-member board and outside actuarial and investment consultants. They reported the June 30, 2025 valuation showed a funded ratio of 55.4%, assets of about $9.6 billion, liabilities of about $17.4 billion, and a FY27 actuarial employer rate of 27.44%, which the board raised to a 32% minimum contribution rate under a policy adopted in 2023. MOSERS attributed the funding decline over time to several factors: reductions in the assumed investment return from 8.5% to 6.95%, mortality assumption updates, a move from open to closed amortization, and especially weak payroll growth and a shrinking active workforce. Staff said the minimum contribution policy is intended to accelerate UAL paydown and could bring the plan to 80% funded by 2037 rather than 2041, assuming all assumptions are met. The committee also discussed the recent experience study, which kept the investment return assumption at 6.95% and made only modest assumption changes, and a proposed 2026 bill package (SB 1557 and SB 1054) that would automatically refund small balances under $1,000 to terminated non-vested members and add auto-escalation to the deferred compensation plan. A substantial portion of the hearing focused on investment strategy and why MOSERS has lagged some peers. The investment consultant said historical underperformance was driven mainly by asset allocation choices that emphasized a more risk-balanced, diversified portfolio with less public equity exposure than peers during a period when equities performed very strongly. He said the board adopted a more equity-oriented allocation in 2024 and is phasing it in over eight quarters, with recent short-term results improving and the portfolio outperforming its policy benchmark. Members also asked about the effect of inactive members, the rationale for the higher employer contribution, and whether the current board should be held responsible for past decisions; MOSERS officials emphasized that the current board is trying to correct course and that pension funding changes take time. The hearing also touched on ongoing litigation against a former private equity manager, Catalyst Capital, with MOSERS saying it has spent about $20 million in legal fees so far and that the case remains on appeal. The committee took no formal vote and adjourned after the informational presentation and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• If that 10% annual contribution is coming directly out of all of your paychecks as the employee, shouldn't
• On behalf of H. 2967, an act regarding employee contribution. Mr.
• On behalf of H. 2967, an act regarding employee contribution. Mr.
• Acceptance into this system came with contribution requirements from employees and employer.
• these employees have made. ...while recognizing and valuing the service and contributions these employees

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Service

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service heard testimony on a wide range of retirement, municipal workforce, and public employee labor bills. Early testimony focused on H. 2749, a Plymouth home rule petition to classify Plymouth harbormaster employees as Group 4 for retirement purposes. Supporters, including local officials and retirement board representatives, argued the employees perform law-enforcement and rescue duties comparable to police and fire personnel, that the change would be fair, and that it would have little or no fiscal impact on the town. A separate harbormaster-related bill, H. 2743, was also introduced later in the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on provisions of the Municipal Empowerment Act (H. 56), including a temporary critical-shortage exemption allowing retired state or municipal employees to return to work in hard-to-fill positions, and a renewed OPEB commission to study retiree health care costs. Administration and municipal officials said the measures were needed to address staffing shortages and rising benefit liabilities, while emphasizing the shortage exemption would be time-limited and require proof of recruitment efforts. Related retirement bills drew support and caution: advocates for higher COLA bases and enhanced COLA benefits urged relief for retirees, but some asked the committee to wait for recommendations from the special COLA commission before acting. A major portion of the hearing concerned labor rights at the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority and the Committee for Public Counsel Services. Union representatives and employees backed bills to extend just-cause protections, promotional rights, and collective bargaining rights to MWRA and CPCS workers, arguing they currently lack protections available to most other public employees. Testimony described unfair discipline, delayed promotions, and high turnover, and committee members indicated prior favorable action on similar MWRA bills and expressed support for addressing CPCS labor rights. The committee also heard from representatives of the Massachusetts Municipal Association and public higher education employees in support of H. 2820, which would require timely funding of ratified state employee contracts, with witnesses describing long delays in receiving negotiated raises and back pay. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair repeatedly invited written testimony and closed each panel after questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• the employee contribution rate?
• /c> both the employer and the employee both the employer and the employee contribution<00:54:15.000><
• </c><00:56:22.520><c> contribution</c><00:56:23.520><c> and</c> a normal employee contribution and a
• normal employee contribution and employer<00:56:24.480><c> contribution</c><00:56:25.240><c> for</c><
• </c> direct contribution from the employee. direct contribution from the employee.

Transcript Highlights:

• the contribution rate in a one-year period.
• These employees also contribute 4% of pay to help offset the cost to the employer.
• We are keeping track of them because they are 2011 plan members that have employee contributions, that
• First is the automatic refund of employee contributions to terminated non-vested members with a balance
• It takes a combination of contributions. It takes a contribution of the benefits formula.

Committee: House Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement

Transcript Highlights:

• will set the contribution percentage for probation agency employees.
• will set the contribution percentage for probation agency employees.
• So in most of our plans either the employee and employer contribution are the same or the employer contribution
• between employees and of contributions between employees and employees.<01:31:37.280><c> I</c><01:31
• employer</c> employee contribution plus an employer employee contribution plus an employer contribution