Transcript Highlights:

• <00:49:18.400><c> employees.
• Chairman, members of the committee, I have full-time employees and part-time employees.
• Chairman, members of the committee, I have full-time employees and part-time employees.
• Chairman, members of the committee, I have full-time employees and part-time employees.
• Chairman, members of the committee, I have full-time employees and part-time employees.

Bills: HB0086

Committee: House Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions

Transcript Highlights:

• So we've got our employee contributions.
• So we've got our employee contributions. We had an increase in for CY-2027 before. Contributions.
• , your employee contributions, and that district funding amount that was $142 million.
• I see that one of the recommendations, like has a district contribution, employee funding, and the Department
• Representative mentioned that the recommendations include a district contribution, employee funding,

Committee: All ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The committee reviewed several State Board of Finance actions related to employee and retiree health benefits, insurance contracts, and reserve funding. Members first considered a rule implementing Act 956 of 2025 requiring vendors working with the Employee Benefits Division to have their data validated by a third-party actuary; it was reviewed without objection. The committee then approved multiple pharmacy and medical formulary recommendations for June, July, and August, including shifting to lower-cost generics, excluding new-to-market drugs pending more evidence or better pricing, re-tiering specialty and limited-distribution drugs, and adjusting prior authorization, step therapy, and age restrictions. Members asked about how Navitus and EBRX develop recommendations, how rebates and coupons are tracked, and whether rebate incentives could influence coverage decisions. The committee also reviewed and approved a one-year Colonial Life accidental death and disability contract extension with level rates for 2026-2027, a one-year UnitedHealthcare Medicare Advantage extension that decouples medical and pharmacy benefits and raises premiums for state and public school retirees, and a new three-year financial auditing contract with Crow Chesnik after an RFQ produced only one response. The UnitedHealthcare renewal was described as the full extent of the increase for the year, with officials saying future increases are likely but should become more predictable. The committee then heard a presentation from Segal Group on public school plan funding and reserve adequacy, which projected that if funding stayed flat the reserve would be drawn down over time and could be exhausted by 2029. Segal presented scenarios showing that maintaining the target reserve would require substantial increases in the minimum district contribution alone, or more moderate increases if costs were spread across district, employee, and Department of Education funding. Members questioned the assumptions behind the projections, including why prescription drug claims were projected to grow 45 percent from an earlier forecast, why actual expenses had come in 17 percent above prior projections, and how federal changes, rising drug costs, and GLP-1 utilization might affect future costs. Several members raised concerns about the loss of wellness visit incentives, the need to control duplicate or inappropriate prescribing, and whether the target reserve level should be revisited. EBD said it is working on cost containment, wellness program redesign, and additional analysis, and indicated it expects to bring a funding and policy recommendation to the committee in September or October. The meeting ended with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:07:47.400><c> Association</c> Hawai government employees Association Hawai government employees
• when we come to making the specific contributions for employees. ...we understand that it is a very
• when we come to making the specific contributions for employees.
• when we come to making the specific contributions for employees.
• </c> struggles uh for a lot of the employees struggles uh for a lot of the employees uh<00:46:59.480>

Committee: House Labor

Transcript Highlights:

• As mentioned earlier, the employee contribution will be 9%.
• </c><00:57:21.359><c> will</c> earlier, the employee contribution will earlier, the employee contribution
• ><c> defined</c> potential employees uh the defined potential employees uh the defined contribution<00
• But at any rate, if I'm an employee under Tier 5 and I'm contributing 9% of my income to the retirement
• And if I'm an employee looking at this new system, my employer's contribution to my retirement is 2%.

Committee: Joint Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Employers and employees, your active members and your employers, they pay various different contribution
• It also increased future contributions for both employers and employees.
• It increased employer contributions and employee contributions, and it also decreased the COLA.
• That 30.71% is part employee, part employer. That is the total amount being contributed.
• And the employee contributions where we're at today.

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, brief section-by-section summary: Section one of the bill lowers the employee contribution rates
• > contribution</c><00:14:18.760><c> rates</c> lowers the employee contribution rates lowers the employee
• The city also wants to ensure the employee gets the contributions they are entitled to.
• </c> this employee can get the contributions this employee can get the contributions they're<00:32:29.480
• </c> and we'll have a bill reducing employee and we'll have a bill reducing employee contribution<01:

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> the actuarial determined contributions. the actuarial determined contributions.
• </c> fully funded plan 0% contributions fully funded plan 0% contributions that<00:11:51.000><c> that
• employee numbers and employee growth employee numbers and employee growth uh, uh, uh, you<00:13:02.880
• </c> contributions on the employer side. contributions on the employer side.
• No liability there. contributions. And in 2018, it received contributions.

Summary: The meeting began with roll call, confirmation of a quorum, and approval of the prior minutes. The main presentation was from KPPA officials Ryan Barrow and Erin Saratt on the annual actuarial valuations for the retirement and insurance systems. They said the systems’ funding status improved overall, with three of five insurance funds fully funded, CERS hazardous dropping from over 100% funded to 90.9% because of premium changes, and KRS receiving $650 million in supplemental funding over the biennium. They also reported strong investment returns above assumed rates, higher payroll and membership counts, and resulting actuarial losses tied to higher salaries and premiums, especially on the insurance side. Members asked several questions about what drove the actuarial losses and whether legislation affected them. KPPA said the CERS insurance loss was driven by premium increases and Senate Bill 10, while the pension-side losses were largely due to higher payroll and benefits for Tier 1 and Tier 2 members. They explained that new Tier 3 employees are designed to add no additional unfunded liability, and that the state administers the systems but does not directly control all hiring. Questions also focused on retiree health premiums, which KPPA said rose about 15% for non-Medicare retirees and 38% for Medicare retirees, with the increase attributed to utilization, prescription costs, and the Inflation Reduction Act. The committee then heard from TRS Deputy Executive Secretary and General Counsel Beau Barnes on the 2025 TRS actuarial valuation. He reported that the Retirement Annuity Trust and Health Insurance Trust both received full funding, the retirement trust’s funded ratio improved to 61%, TRS 4 remains well funded with no liability, and the health insurance trust improved to 89.1%. Barnes said TRS is on track to fully fund legacy liabilities within the amortization period, with 2044 as the point when the system reflects 100% funding and 2046 as the last year needing additional dollars for the legacy liability. He also explained that lower assumed investment returns and updated mortality assumptions increased liabilities, but that TRS uses direct rate smoothing for budgeting purposes. At the end of the meeting, the chair circulated a proposed set of “do’s and don’ts of pensions,” emphasizing that future legislation should not create unfunded liabilities. Barnes also noted he would later discuss several legislative proposals for the 2026 session, but the transcript provided ends before that discussion or any votes on those proposals.

Transcript Highlights:

• We collect more than $1.2 billion in employee and employer contributions, with the 10.7% that they're
• and Employer Contributions.
• A 401(k) that is offered to certain university employees, typically those high-earning employees.
• The contributions include the contributions from employees.
• Madam Chair, the contribution rates, what the employee and what the employer pays, are the exact same

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• It could be there to offset employer contributions in the future.
• And since you'll have more payroll on which contributions are calculated, you can have a lower contribution
• Okay, so this is our Municipal Employees' Retirement System.
• I think we have about 428 active employees. I did a quick look.
• And then contribution gain-loss references sort of the changing contributions and accounts for the fact

Summary: The Public Retirement System Actuarial Committee met on February 23, 2026, approved the December 18, 2025 minutes, and heard no public comment. The committee then reviewed actuarial valuation reports and, for most systems, accompanying experience studies. The actuaries reported generally favorable investment and demographic experience across the systems, with funded ratios improving and employer contribution rates declining in several plans. They also explained the role of funding deposit accounts, frozen unfunded liabilities in some plans, and how recent legislative changes, especially the move to five-year DROP periods in some systems, affected assumptions and costs. For the Louisiana Clerk of Court Retirement Relief Fund, the committee adopted the valuation and experience study, recognizing a fiscal 2027 minimum recommended employer rate of 14.75%. For the District Attorney’s Retirement System, it adopted the valuation and experience study and recognized a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 3.00%. For the Firefighters’ Retirement System, the committee adopted the valuation and experience study, recognized a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 25.5%, and noted that DROP balances left on deposit will earn the market rate of return of 11.7%. The committee also adopted the Municipal Employees’ Retirement System valuation for both Plan A and Plan B, recognizing fiscal 2027 minimum rates of 20.75% and 8.75%, respectively. It adopted the Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System valuation and experience study, recognizing a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 26.5%, a DROP crediting rate of 7.4%, and a policy range up to 29.35% for future contributions. For the Registrars of Voters Employees’ Retirement System, the committee adopted the valuation and experience study, recognized a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 0%, and noted a $207,683 allocation to the Member Supplemental Savings Fund for fiscal 2026. Finally, it adopted the Sheriff’s Pension and Relief Fund valuation and experience study, recognizing a fiscal 2027 minimum rate of 7.75%. All motions passed without objection, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> payroll contributions are made. payroll contributions are made.
• So, the next consideration was the balance of employee and employer contributions.
• of employee and employer contributions.<00:53:23.600><c> This</c><00:53:23.840><c> topic</c><00:53:24.480
• </c> contribution increase. contribution increase.
• Two employees performing the same public safety role and contributing the same percentage of their pay

Transcript Highlights:

• It would allow a small contribution to those plans, allow the union to negotiate a small contribution
• A small contribution to those plans.
• For certificated employees, we have a system. There is a process for reporting employees.
• And finally, the opportunity to contribute to a defined contribution plan is also there as well.
• And finally, you know, the opportunity to contribute to a defined contribution plan is also there as

Committee: House Public Employment and Retirement

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement heard several bills dealing with pensions, holidays, public employee accountability, and first responder retirement. AB 912 was taken up on the consent calendar and passed. AB 569, as amended, would allow local public employers and unions to negotiate contributions to supplemental defined benefit pension plans; the author and Teamsters said it would clarify existing PEPRA grandfathering rules, while labor supported it, and the bill passed to Appropriations. AB 989 would make California Native American Day a paid state holiday, with strong support from Native organizations and tribes and no opposition; the committee members spoke in favor and the bill passed. AB 268 would recognize Diwali as an official state holiday, also with broad support and no opposition, and it passed. AJR 3 urged protection of Social Security, Medicare, and Medi-Cal from federal cuts; retirees, caregivers, and health advocates testified in support, and the resolution passed. AB 1067 would require public employers to complete misconduct investigations even if an employee retires during the process; the author said it closes an accountability loophole, while opposition raised due process and family-retirement concerns, and the bill passed as amended. AB 1510 was presented as a cleanup bill making technical changes to state employee pay and benefits and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority labor law; it passed with support from AFSCME. The committee then heard AB 1233, which would create a statewide database of classified school employee positions and certain egregious misconduct records to help school employers screen applicants. School administrators and county school officials supported the bill as a student-safety tool, while classified employee groups raised concerns about fairness, due process, and the scope of misconduct covered; the author said the bill already focuses on serious sex and drug offenses involving children and was open to narrowing language. The bill passed to the Committee on Education. Finally, AB 1383, a major first responder retirement bill, drew extensive testimony. The author and firefighters argued that lowering the normal retirement age for public safety employees from 57 to 55 and restoring some bargaining flexibility would help recruitment, retention, and health, citing cancer and other job-related risks. Cities, counties, and local government associations opposed it, warning it would roll back PEPRA reforms, increase pension costs, and strain local budgets. Despite the opposition, committee members spoke strongly in favor of first responders and the bill passed to Appropriations. The committee then adjourned after all items were voted out.

Transcript Highlights:

• It could be there to offset employer contributions in the future.
• And since you'll have more payroll on which contributions are calculated, you can have a lower contribution
• Okay, so this is our Municipal Employees' Retirement System.
• So Municipal Employees' Retirement System, forgive me, municipal employees retirement system, they have
• And then contribution gain-loss references, sort of the changing contributions, and sort of accounts

Summary: The Public Retirement System Actuarial Committee met on February 23, 2026, approved the December 18, 2025 minutes, and heard actuarial valuation reports and experience studies for several retirement systems. Presenters repeatedly noted strong investment performance, payroll growth, and generally improving funded ratios across the systems, with most plans showing lower minimum recommended employer contribution rates for fiscal 2027. The committee also received explanations of funding deposit accounts, frozen unfunded liabilities in some plans, and how recent legislative changes, including the move to five-year DROP periods in some systems, affected costs and assumptions. For the Clerk of Court, District Attorney, Firefighters, Municipal Employees (Plans A and B), Municipal Police, Registrars of Voters, and Sheriffs systems, the committee reviewed 2025 actuarial evaluations and, where applicable, 2025 experience studies. The actuarial reviewers reported no significant deficiencies and said the valuations were completed in accordance with applicable actuarial standards, generally accepted actuarial practice, and state statutes. The experience studies generally led to modest assumption changes, with some cost decreases from salary, mortality, withdrawal, and asset experience, while some plans saw offsetting increases from retirement or post-DROP behavior. The committee asked a brief question about mortality assumptions and was told the studies use separate male/female and safety/non-safety tables adjusted for Louisiana experience. The committee adopted each valuation and experience study without objection. Key fiscal 2027 minimum recommended employer contribution rates included 14.75% for Clerk of Court, 3.0% for District Attorneys, 25.5% for Firefighters, 20.75% for MERS Plan A, 8.75% for MERS Plan B, 26.5% for Municipal Police, 0% for Registrars of Voters with a $207,683 allocation to the Member Supplemental Savings Fund, and 7.75% for Sheriffs. The committee also recognized DROP crediting rates where applicable and adjourned after completing all agenda items.

Transcript Highlights:

• Contribution rates are trending downward.
• Impact projected contribution rates.
• This table just shows you the underlying expected change in plan 2 employee contribution rates and employer
• contribution rates from adopting the recommendation. ...and employer contribution rates from adopting
• You know, we had basically our former employees, you know, and Plan 1 employees are at a disadvantage

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The committee approved the July minutes and then received an informational presentation from the Office of the State Actuary on the financial condition of the state retirement systems. The actuary reported that employer contribution rates are generally declining, helped by strong investment returns and reduced funding for PERS 1 and TERS 1, while funded ratios have continued to improve; on a combined basis the plans were reported at 100% funded in 2024, with open plans above 95% and legacy plans varying by system. The presentation also reviewed projected rates and funded ratios under current assumptions, noted that pension costs are taking a smaller share of the state general fund, and discussed risks from investment volatility, policy changes, and demographic experience. Committee members asked about savings from lower rates, deferred asset smoothing, and how Washington compares with other states. The committee then considered the state actuary’s recommendation on long-term economic assumptions and adopted all four recommendations by roll call votes: inflation at 3.0%, general salary growth at 3.5%, membership growth for Plan 1 funding at 1.0%, and investment rate of return at 7.25%. The actuaries explained that the inflation and salary growth increases were driven largely by higher long-term inflation expectations, while the investment return recommendation matched the current statutory assumption. Members discussed the timing of the Pension Funding Council’s decision, the effect of tariffs and inflation uncertainty, and how assumption changes would affect future contribution rates and budgets, particularly for open plans. Staff then gave an update on the LEOFF 1 study, explaining the difference between being “ahead of schedule” and truly overfunded, and summarizing responses received from DRS, the State Treasurer, and the State Investment Board on the merger and restatement proposals. DRS said both bills could be administered, though the merger bill’s COLA banking provision would be challenging until its new system is ready; the Treasurer urged caution, especially about the restatement bill and the use of one-time funds; and the Investment Board said removing assets from the trust would have some transaction costs but likely small impacts. The committee discussed whether to invite additional agencies and local government groups to testify, and staff said more responses, including from Ice Miller and the State Actuary, were expected for the October meeting. Finally, the committee heard a briefing on PERS 1/TERS 1 COLA policy and related bills from the last session. Staff reviewed the committee’s prior ongoing COLA recommendation, the SCPP-endorsed bills that would have created a one-time 3% COLA followed by an ongoing COLA, the Senate merger bill, and a separate ad hoc COLA bill. Public testimony largely supported Plan 1 COLAs and stable contribution rates, while several speakers urged caution about transferring LEOFF 1 surplus assets or merging legacy plans, and others raised concerns about climate risk and the pension fund’s investments. No further committee action was taken on the COLA item during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• One is you'll see employee or employee contributions go down as they get close to 100%, or you'll see
• One is you'll see employee or employee contributions go down as they get close to 100%, or you'll see
• One is you'll see employee or employee contributions go down as they get close to 100%, or you'll see
• Is you'll see employee or employee contributions go down as they get close to 100%, or you'll see a benefit
• That separate from the state aid there is in our general employees plan an employer contribution, an

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• contributions.
• on investment of those contributions.
• PERSI is a dedicated fund agency, so they are fully funded by employer and employee retirement contributions
• what the state would benefit from moving to a defined contribution plan.
• If you also—one of the downsides has been employee morale and employee retention, where we’ve seen that

Summary: The Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee heard budget presentations for the Idaho Military Division, the Division of Veterans Services, and the Public Employee Retirement System of Idaho (PERSI). For the Military Division, analysts and Major General Tim Donnellan reviewed the division’s structure, recent transfer of emergency medical services into the division, and the fiscal year 2027 request. The request included a small general fund amount for hazardous materials response, a pay-parity adjustment for state employees tied to federal military pay scales, and a dedicated-fund enhancement for overhead recovery, offset by rescissions including vacant positions and reduced tuition assistance. Members asked about the 3% rescission, EMS transition costs, and why certain CEC-related positions appeared in and out of the budget; the general said the division had absorbed the cut but that further reductions could affect education assistance for Guardsmen. He also described the EMS transition as smooth and said the division was modernizing its Army and Air components. The committee then reviewed the Division of Veterans Services budget and heard from Administrator Mark Champal. The analyst outlined the division’s homes, cemeteries, veteran assistance programs, and fiscal year 2027 requests, including one-time equipment and replacement items, an ongoing reduction for expiring software fees, and reductions for long-vacant positions. Questions focused on nursing shortages, contract labor, the miscellaneous revenue fund, and memory-care capacity. Champal said the division is using a temporary nursing pool to reduce reliance on contract nurses and expects to save nearly half a million dollars, while continuing to struggle with staffing. He said the Boise home currently meets memory-care needs and that the new Boise facility could expand if needed. He also highlighted outreach efforts, claims assistance, cemetery services, and the division’s efforts to connect veterans with outside support. Finally, PERSI’s budget was presented and discussed with Director Mike Hampton. The analyst described the retirement system’s defined benefit and defined contribution plans, the ongoing pension software upgrade, and one-time requests for the final software phase, disaster recovery planning, and IT replacements. Committee members asked about administrative growth, who participates in PERSI, software maintenance costs, and why there was no general fund rescission. Hampton explained that PERSI is fully funded by employer and employee contributions, that the software project is nearing completion, and that the annual maintenance increase reflects licensing costs. He also discussed post-retirement allowance adjustments, saying the board recommended a retroactive catch-up through 2022 and that future increases depend on fund performance and legislative action. The committee also discussed the merits and risks of defined benefit versus defined contribution plans, and Hampton said PERSI remains well funded, with strong investment returns and broad participation across Idaho public employers. The meeting ended with adjournment until the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• They continue to grow. employee and employeer contributions and employee and employeer contributions
• : the employee pays 7%, the employer contributes 2.4%.
• , we require the employee contribution to go down so that it never exceeds the total employer contribution
• , we require the employee contribution to go down so that it never exceeds the total employer contribution
• We require the employee contribution to go down so that it never exceeds the total employer contribution

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:

• </c> employee and employee the employee employee and employee the employee contribution<00:01:43.400>
• And if you don't take in enough contributions, whether they be a mix of employee-employer contributions
• Um, I uh, 3.4 for the employee contribution decrease, and 8.8 for the COLA increase cost.
• Um, I uh, 3.4 for the employee contribution decrease, and 8.8 for the COLA increase cost.
• And as a result of that, we don't collect any employee contribution to TRA.

Transcript Highlights:

• Then you have the employee contribution out of all of these.
• </c> employers then you have the employee employers then you have the employee contribution<00:07:22.319
• contribution which is the employee contribution which is 3.75%<00:08:22.680><c> the</c><00:08:22.800
• </c> my question goes to uh the employee my question goes to uh the employee contribution<00:08:56.200
• something</c> employee contribution is that something employee contribution is that something that<00

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• most important thing to state employees.
• It shows you the membership as far as the employees and whether they are state employees, legislators
• And what is really unique about it is the optional contribution piece, where employees have the opportunity
• And that brings the overall contribution level in line with the contribution levels of the previous plans
• Thank you. ...retirement programs of state employees or employees of any political subdivision, or health

Committee: Joint Employee Benefits Programs Committee

Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave policies, labor market conditions, and prevailing wage issues, then later took up committee rules and bill-draft jurisdiction. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the state has paid the full family premium since 1979, described cost-control and benefit-enhancement changes over time, and explained current plan options, wellness incentives, employer wellness discounts, and the upcoming bid process for the 2027-29 contract. HRMS then presented compensation comparisons showing state classified pay generally trails private and regional markets, with larger gaps at higher-level jobs, and reviewed benefits and leave policies, including the new enhanced annual leave and new-hire leave, the state’s unpaid family leave structure, and varying tuition reimbursement practices. Job Service reported on labor force trends, low unemployment, high labor force participation, job openings, and wage growth, and OMB said there are no state prevailing-wage requirements beyond federal Davis-Bacon rules for federally funded projects. The committee then considered a proposed amendment to Joint Rule 211 to better align the health insurance mandate review process with recent statutory changes. Members discussed how the rule should reference both the committee’s required actuarial reports and the Legislative Council cost-benefit analysis, and the amendment was adopted on a roll call vote. The committee also discussed how its jurisdiction decisions affect whether a bill draft receives actuarial analysis, with staff explaining that a decision not to take jurisdiction means the bill is not treated as impacting the relevant retirement or health plans for purposes of that analysis. After that, the committee began reviewing bill drafts for jurisdiction. The first draft, bill draft 33, would automatically renew pre-tax elections for dental and vision coverage during open enrollment instead of requiring annual re-election. Members debated whether it had any actuarial impact, noting the state does not pay those premiums directly, and the discussion was still underway when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• contributions required.
• </c> if they're in a defined contribution if they're in a defined contribution relief<01:26:04.920><c
• And I think the alternative, of course, would be reducing the employee contribution.
• and reducing contributions contributions and reducing contributions in<01:48:43.040><c> my</c><01:48
• We were on a two-year moratorium where the contribution limit, or should I say contribution from employees