Transcript Highlights:

• We are back on the bill. Amendment barcode 861188. We are back on the bill as amended.
• The state would still pay in dollars. It would pay it onto the platform.
• So with that, I will turn it back to you, sir. With that, I will turn it back to you, sir.
• But the state wouldn't be paying gold. The state would be paying dollars to the platform.
• Going back to Mr.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 794, as amended by a late-filed strike-all, which would require a human being to make insurance claim denial decisions and prohibit artificial intelligence from being the sole basis for a denial. The sponsor said the bill was intended to preserve human oversight while allowing innovation in claims processing. Public testimony included support from the Florida Insurance Consumer Advocate and the Florida Medical Association, along with one speaker urging additional protections for homeowners. The committee adopted the strike-all and reported SB 794 favorably with committee substitutes. Members then heard SB 134, which removes the $500 threshold on the sales tax exemption for bullion, making sales of gold, silver, and platinum bullion fully exempt and eliminating certain dealer documentation requirements. Supporters argued the change would reduce a regressive tax and help consumers preserve savings; the sponsor estimated a revenue impact of about $300,000. The bill was reported favorably. The committee also adopted a strike-all on SB 888, which directs the Office of Insurance Regulation to create a more consumer-friendly homeowners insurance website with premium comparison information, market data, rate filing access, and educational resources. The sponsor and Leader Boyd said the goal was to improve transparency and help consumers navigate a stabilizing market. SB 888 was reported favorably with committee substitutes. The final bill heard was SB 1578, covering mammograms and supplemental breast cancer screenings. The sponsor said it would expand coverage requirements in ACA plans and private insurance policies, including annual mammograms for women ages 40 to 50 and supplemental screening coverage, while noting Medicaid already provides these services. The Florida Insurance Consumer Advocate waived in support, and the bill was reported favorably. After the bills, the committee held a lengthy panel discussion on gold and silver as legal tender and transactional money, with testimony from officials from Utah and Florida, industry representatives, and advocacy groups. Panelists discussed constitutional authority, consumer protections, depository oversight, taxation issues, and possible transactional platforms for precious metals. No further action was taken after the discussion, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we'll pay it back over time. Okay. All right. And so. What happens?
• But as far as Merced to Bakersfield, To move forward, allow us to potentially pay back sooner.
• going to pay it back, how are we going to pay it back, when are we going to get those details?
• If the payback mechanism is they will pay themselves back through the program, then maybe it is not the
• We were going to use revenue from this project to also pay the state back for some of the money that

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 heard an update from the California High-Speed Rail Authority on its 2026 draft business plan and related budget proposals. The Authority said work in the Central Valley is advancing, with 59 of 92 major structures complete, 80 of 119 miles under construction finished, utility relocations 93% complete, and track-laying expected to begin later this year. It said the revised plan targets completion of the Merced-to-Bakersfield early operating segment in 2032-33, and it highlighted a new strategy focused on ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and possible value-capture tools such as real estate, energy, broadband, logistics, and tax increment financing. The Authority also asked for reappropriation of $423 million in Prop 1A funds for the Link Union Station project and $246 million in federal trust funds to avoid expiration. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said it had no specific concerns with the two budget change proposals but raised broader concerns about the draft business plan and the project’s finances. LAO said the plan appears to assume optimistic cost savings, immediate approval of major statutory changes, and reliable future cap-and-invest revenues, while actual funding may be insufficient even for the revised Central Valley segment once borrowing costs are included. LAO also said the draft business plan was missing several required elements identified by the Office of the Inspector General, and it suggested the Legislature could wait until the plan is finalized before acting. Department of Finance had no additional comment. Members questioned the Authority about whether all proposed financing and policy changes are necessary, how tax increment financing would affect local governments and school districts, and what authority the Authority has to enter public-private partnerships without further legislative approval. The Authority said utility relocation authority is its top legislative priority, that value capture is a longer-term tool not needed to complete Merced-to-Bakersfield, and that any state backstop beyond the current $20 billion commitment would require returning to the Legislature. It said a private partner is expected to be selected around June 1, with more detailed financing analysis to follow over six to eight months. Public testimony was split: labor groups and project supporters backed the budget request and urged action on utility relocation and job creation, while local government and special district representatives strongly opposed tax increment financing and related land-use proposals without local consent. The hearing ended with no vote taken and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The buyer pays that. The seller pays the retailing B&O tax on the income from the retail sales.
• The buyer pays that. The seller pays the retailing B&O tax on the income from the retail sales.
• The buyer pays that. The seller pays the retailing B&O tax on the income from the retail sales.
• Those are back-office services.
• So we pay sales tax. We have more of that in Washington than our competitors. So we pay sales tax.

Summary: The House Finance Committee held a work session that began with welcoming new member Rep. Janice Zahn, who introduced herself as representing the 41st Legislative District. The Department of Revenue then gave an update on the Antio-related legislation following the Washington Supreme Court decision and the 2025 session changes. DOR explained its voluntary disclosure program and the new expanded voluntary disclosure agreement for taxpayers with unreported investment income, including broader eligibility and interest/penalty relief, but said utilization has been minimal so far because additional implementation questions remain unresolved. The committee next received the annual update on the Working Families Tax Credit. DOR reported record participation in 2025, with about $205 million refunded through October and a major increase in applications after TurboTax added the credit to its filing software. Officials said most dollars went to households with children, outreach efforts remained important, and community partners and state agencies helped increase uptake. Members focused heavily on fraud concerns, especially tax preparers allegedly filing claims without applicants’ knowledge or diverting refunds; DOR said it is using fraud detection tools, training preparers, and trying to make applicants whole, but current law does not provide direct penalties against preparers. The final portion covered implementation of engrossed substitute Senate Bill 5814, which expanded sales tax to certain services. DOR described the new tax framework, its guidance process, and the large volume of ruling requests and outreach since the law took effect October 1. Committee members asked about fiscal assumptions, the scope of taxable services, and whether the department had revised its implementation estimates; DOR said the fiscal note assumed broad application absent explicit exemptions and that no expenditure revision had been made. In stakeholder testimony, Expedia and T-Mobile argued the law creates complexity and competitive disadvantages for Washington businesses, while a construction training provider said the tax raises tuition for workers seeking required certifications. School and nonprofit representatives said the tax will increase costs for special education services, arts programming, and other public-facing activities, and urged exemptions or further legislative fixes. The chair closed by noting the committee would revisit 5814 in the next session and then adjourned the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the rate of pay increases and the schedule of pay increases will be questions we have based on
• And what is the current pay? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is the current pay for VSOs? $99.
• within those pay bands.
• I'd like to see that when you guys come back, maybe we'll have back in December if you're coming back
• Have happened that OFRA took the child in, put him back in, and was that court-ordered to put him back

Transcript Highlights:

• And the new students, as they enter, they pay; when they graduate, they can get the money back.
• We looked back at prior analyses.
• We looked back at prior analyses. Most notably, Institutions. We looked back at prior analyses.
• Matt Back, hello members.
• It was back to back because there was a trigger. So a lot to go through.

Summary: The joint Sunset Review Oversight Hearing focused on the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE) and its reauthorization, operations, enforcement, fiscal condition, and student protections. Committee leaders and DCA officials praised the Bureau’s recent improvements in data systems, licensing, inspections, and enforcement, while noting the Bureau’s role has become more important as federal higher education oversight weakens. Bureau Chief Deborah Cochran said the agency has met its inspection mandate for the first time since the law was enacted, increased citations and disciplinary actions, reduced pending complaints, and used data tools to identify risk and monitor institutions more effectively. A major portion of the hearing centered on student harm, especially school closures, transcript access, predatory recruiting, and the Student Tuition Recovery Fund (STRF). Members asked how the Bureau protects students when schools close, whether bad actors can reopen under new entities, and whether enforcement tools are strong enough. Cochran said the Bureau can cite, fine, place schools on probation, revoke licenses, and order refunds, but it is seeking new authority to deny approval to operators who previously closed schools improperly or failed to refund students. She also said the Bureau is tracking ownership data and is concerned about institutions targeting immigrant and visa students. On STRF, Cochran explained that the fund is currently healthy, assessments are at zero because the balance is above the statutory target, and the Bureau paid about 1,100 claims totaling roughly $17 million over the last four years. Several members questioned the fairness of the assessment structure and discussed alternatives such as surety bonds, but the Bureau said STRF is working well and no change is needed at this time. Fee increases and the Bureau’s structural deficit were another major topic. Cochran said the Bureau reduced costs by eliminating positions, streamlining inspections, improving data analysis, and shifting some student-relief costs to STRF, but that legislative action is still needed to address the deficit. She said the proposed fees were based on workload analyses and that application fees generally match service costs, while annual fees are designed to cover most of the Bureau’s revenue needs. Some members and stakeholders criticized the proposed increases as too high, especially for out-of-state registration and campus fees, while others argued the Bureau needs sufficient resources to regulate effectively. Public commenters from private schools, Northeastern University, San Joaquin Valley College/Carrington College, and TICAS generally supported the Bureau’s mission and reauthorization, but urged changes such as risk-based oversight, better transcript protections, stronger limits on repeated provisional approvals, and more targeted fee and STRF reforms. No votes were taken, and the hearing ended with no formal action beyond discussion and receipt of testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Who's paying the grant, though?
• employment no fault of their own back employment no fault of their own back into<01:12:56.679>
• into the workforce and to get them back into the workforce and to get them back as<01:12:59.120>
• with the US treas treasury um they pay with the US treas treasury um they pay they<01:29:56.040>
• up even more we have um let me just back up even more we have to<01:58:56.119> pay<01:58:57.119

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony from Insurance Commissioner DJ Bettencourt on the New Hampshire Insurance Department budget. He said the department is self-funded through assessments on insurers based on New Hampshire premium volume, with about $8 billion in premiums written in the state and a department budget of roughly $15.5 million. He explained that the department has 88 authorized positions, eight vacancies, and that three full-time positions were unfunded after the governor’s requested 4% reduction exercise. He also said the department is trying to balance staffing needs with not overburdening carriers during a hard insurance market. A major topic was the department’s $2.6 million rebate to industry from the prior fiscal year, which Bettencourt described as a credit against the next assessment rather than a direct cash payment. Members questioned why that credit was not reflected as a reduction in the upcoming budget, and Bettencourt and staff explained that the budget assumes full staffing and full spending, with any year-end surplus returned to insurers. The commissioner said the department had added staff in recent years for succession planning and to preserve institutional expertise, and that the rebate reflects careful budgeting rather than excess spending. Members also asked about staffing changes by division, including positions unfunded in fraud, property and casualty examinations, life and health examinations, and tax. Bettencourt said fraud investigations remain strong and that the department can use outside contractors for examinations, with those costs billed to the company being examined. He also described the department’s examination process, including periodic financial exams and targeted market conduct reviews triggered by consumer complaints or trends. Additional questions covered OIT transfers, the department’s oversight of fully insured health coverage, the insurance premium tax and fines going to the general fund, and the department’s limited role in auto repair reimbursement disputes, where he said complaints have recently declined.

Transcript Highlights:

• You could pay you could pay for both.
• Does they have to pay that back? Does the state pay that? The state recoups that money.
• So they have to pay that back. That's yeah. And that's also upsetting. Yeah. Okay.
• : do I want to continue to be in the EFA program and pay this bill back to my district, or do I want
• back to my district or and pay this bill back to my district or do<01:00:14.880> I<01:00:14.920

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'd ask that you fill those back in.
• Their base pay currently is $42,000.
• We're back on the record.
• And some of that has to do with pay.
• We had one that just recently left us as an instructor to go back to police work because it got him back

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:31:25.120> dispersement<00:31:25.600> of pay it back with the dispersement of pay it
• The funds to pay back this $5 million."
• some they'd have to pay back, you know, some they'd have to pay back, you know, some in. in. in.
• So, you know, April is when they have to pay back the loan.
• pay back that<02:04:47.679> loan.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So getting into the context of the bill and what we're trying to do here: back in 2021, back when Wayfair
• And this would actually come back to ask the legislature to go ahead and change this back.
• Consumers won't be paying more.
• So they said, we don't have to pay yet. We're exempt.
• And the little people are the ones paying. Believe me, it's the little people paying in our county.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think you go back to perhaps the question of accreditation.
• So, I will bring back to you what I can with more specificity.
• pay the documentary stamp at a fraction of that rate.
• This just reduces the rate that they pay to the state of Oklahoma.
• So, you're telling me that there are people that are paying an excise tax and paying ad valorem yearly

Bills: SB683, SB1579, SB1389, SB1387, SB1390, SB1391, SB2063, SB1829, SB2060, SB1842, SB1398, SB1212, SB2158, SB102

Keywords: education, tax credit, student support, private school, Oklahoma Parental Choice Tax Credit, financial assistance, homeschooling, qualified expenses, property tax, valuation increase, taxpayer rights, homestead, protest process, school choice, tuition assistance, income limits, parental choice, accreditation, sales tax, motor vehicles

Transcript Highlights:

• pays.
• goes right back out to pay claims.
• We were able to pay our claims mid-month.
• Uh, in fact, the Department of Insurance audits EGI once every 3 years and provides a back report back
• You're essentially paying or You're essentially paying or wanting that readiness in that hospital.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I do believe that what we're paying On this is what we are statutorily required to pay.
• required to pay.
• We pay attention to the consent decree and what we have to pay.
• I'm concerned that we're looking at not paying back that nor the uninsured care that's being provided
• I'm deeply troubled that we can find 2 million dollars to pay back a single nonprofit organization for

Bills: SB1636, SB1584, SB1730, SB1255, SB1627, SB137, SB2062, SB1470, SB1284, SB1632, SB1594, SB2045, SB1251, SB1884, SB1250, SB1630, SB1262, SB1374, SB1292, SB1432, SB1199, SB1790, SB1481, SB1614, SB1734, SB1437, SB1489, SB1718, SB1778, SB1327, SB1372, SB1403, SB1937, SB277, SB2131, SB1749, SB1348, SB1469, SB2018, SB1931, SB1530, SB2155, SB2030, SB1926, SB2170, SB2151, SB2166, SB1213, SB1381, SB1824, SB1876, SB1728, SB1582, SB1286, SB1386, SB1708, SB1618, SB2106, SB1471, SB2139, SB2154, SB1619, SCR15, HB2786, HB2787, SB1525, SB2011, SB2159

Keywords: cold case, unsolved homicide, violent crime, case file review, law enforcement, police records, victim family, immediate family member, designated person, forensic testing, witness reinterview, investigative leads, cold case unit, unsolved murder, public safety, Title 21, Oklahoma statutes, sexual assault, evidence kits, DNA testing

Transcript Highlights:

• already pay taxes they actually already pay taxes they actually already pay taxes but do they so why
• no but they pay they tax no no no no no no but they pay they tax no no no no no no but they pay they
• pay taxes already in fact I think the pay taxes already in fact I think the pay taxes already in fact
• income tax if they are paying not paying income tax if they are paying not paying income tax if they
• they can file the credit but they are paying taxes question pay tax they are paying taxes question pay

Bills: SB82, SB78, SB4, SB6, SB62, SB66, SB77, SB63, SB79, SB53, SB55, HB14

Keywords: SB82, warrant recall, outstanding warrants, stale warrants, misdemeanor warrants, Class B misdemeanor, Class C misdemeanor, municipal magistrate, circuit court clerk, criminal procedure, court administration, docket cleanup, warrant audit, law enforcement notification, domestic violence, sex offense, weapons offense, deadly weapon, dangerous instrument, felony-related charges

Transcript Highlights:

• that no one could see that I was back. that no one could see that I was back.
• And back then, uh, I know I'm going back a few years, but, uh, there was a landline.
• to make your citizens maybe pay more. to make your citizens maybe pay more.
• pay.
• We'll be back one year, two years, five years, we'll be back.

Bills: HB0111, HB0112, HB0122

Keywords: capital construction, state funding, Wyoming, major maintenance, community colleges, task force, legislative services, budget appropriation, unexpended funds, sunset clause, healthcare, rural health, transformation program, funding, incentives, training, access, perpetuity fund, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Anderson could come back up.
• we're paying double for everybody. we're paying double for everybody.
• And then what they do is they pay an assessment, and then there's a tax credit that goes back on the
• It's they pay and then it comes back as a tax credit.
• defrail costs, pay for um reinsurance. defrail costs, pay for um reinsurance.

Bills: HF3388, HF400

Keywords: HF3388, Minnesota premium security plan, reinsurance, health insurance, group health carriers, MCHA, MNsure, individual market, premium stabilization, carrier assessment, health insurance assessment, premium security plan account, state innovation waiver, high-risk pool, reinsurance payments, healthcare premiums, insurance carriers, deferral of assessment, financially impaired condition, HF400

Summary: The committee approved the minutes from the prior day and then heard House File 400, a bill described as a defrayal measure for health insurance mandates. Representative Perryman said the bill would not block future mandates, but would require the state to pay the added costs of any new mandated benefits so those costs would not be shifted to premium payers. She and supporters framed the bill as a way to protect affordability for Minnesota employers, workers, and families, especially in the fully insured market. Testimony in support came from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and the Minnesota Council of Health Plans. They argued that Minnesota has a high number of mandated benefits, that each new mandate adds cost to premiums, and that businesses—especially small and midsize employers—are already struggling with rising health insurance costs. The health plans representative said the bill would use the existing Commerce defrayal process to reimburse plans for eligible mandate-related claims, allowing those costs to be removed from premium rates. Several members echoed support, saying the bill would improve transparency by showing the fiscal impact of proposed mandates and help prevent people from being priced out of coverage. Members also explored how mandates apply in the market and how premiums are set. Deputy Commissioner Julia Dryer explained that, unless otherwise specified, mandates generally apply to the individual, small group, and fully insured large group markets, while self-insured ERISA plans and other markets are generally outside that scope. Representative Elkins noted that the affected market is relatively small and said small businesses are increasingly moving to self-insured plans because of cost. He and others raised concerns about affordability, while Representative Smith argued that mandates often ensure needed care and that the bill shifts costs to taxpayers rather than insurers. Representative Bacham added a personal example from tribal self-insurance, saying preventive physicals had saved lives and asking whether other factors besides mandates are driving insurer costs. No amendments were offered, and the bill was laid over for possible future consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, we pay for it. We do. You pay the state. The state. The taxpayers pay for it, okay?
• We pay monthly.
• It started at just under $1,000 a month, as what we were paying back in fiscal year 20, and now it's
• And let me take a step back.
• So they will pay us.

Bills: SB 1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Summary: The committee heard budget presentations from the Legislative Budget Board and agency officials on several agencies, starting with the Texas Historical Commission. LBB described a large biennial reduction driven mainly by the removal of one-time funding and discussed capital projects, rider changes, and exceptional items including Presidio La Bahia and the National Museum of the Pacific War. Senators asked about heritage trails, courthouse grants, unexpended balance authority, and the status of historical-site funding. Historical Commission leadership emphasized preservation, courthouse restoration, heritage tourism, coordination with the Alamo and other Texas Revolution sites, and requested additional IT, staffing, and vehicle funding. No votes were taken. The committee then reviewed the Pension Review Board and the Employees Retirement System. The Pension Review Board’s budget was largely unchanged aside from IT maintenance and salary adjustments, with an exceptional item for additional IT enhancements. Members discussed the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System’s funding dispute and the need for a workable restoration plan. ERS presented a much larger budget, including funding for the retirement system, the group benefits plan, and the legacy payment intended to reduce unfunded liability. Senators focused heavily on pension investment returns, benchmark comparisons, and rising health-care costs, especially pharmacy spending driven by GLP-1 drugs; ERS said the plan covers about 540,000 lives and that premiums would rise 8% while benefits remain unchanged. ERS also said it had no exceptional items, and committee members requested more detailed benchmark information. The committee also heard from the Texas Emergency Services Retirement System and the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. TESSORS reported an unfunded liability, an infinite amortization period, and requested additional state support, staffing, and IT funding, including a statutory change to allow a higher contribution level; the agency warned that without more funding it may have to cut benefits. CEPRIT’s presentation covered its bond-funded cancer research and prevention portfolio, revenue-sharing from funded projects, and a request to increase salary limits for its CEO and chief scientific officer. Senators questioned CEPRIT’s accomplishments and return on investment, while CEPRIT cited screening, prevention, and research outcomes, including tens of thousands of detected cancers and precursors and hundreds of thousands of first-time screenings. The meeting ended after these presentations and questions, with no recorded committee action or vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• They'd pay the same. You're a nice additional question. Thank you.
• Back to the main part of the bill.
• You're going to be able to pay... Florida told these kids, hey, we got your back.
• Now you have to pay three or four times more.
• It goes back, I think, to 2017. Page after page after page.

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee took up SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. Gruters described the measure as a broad crackdown on illegal immigration that would replace a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, create a $250 million grant program for local law enforcement, fund additional Department of Agriculture interdiction staff and facilities, expand pretrial detention for certain unauthorized immigrants, increase criminal penalties, require more cooperation with ICE, and eliminate in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students. He and supporters framed the bill as a way to support law enforcement, deter illegal immigration, and align Florida with federal enforcement efforts. Committee questioning focused heavily on the bill’s education, detention, and enforcement provisions. Senators pressed Gruters and Fine on why the bill did not address employer sanctions or E-Verify, whether the tuition changes would affect students who had grown up in Florida, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, and whether the bill would create practical burdens for prosecutors, jails, and local officials. Gruters said he was open to working on E-Verify in regular session but not to amending this bill, and Fine argued the tuition repeal would apply to undocumented students who had qualified under existing law. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri testified in support, saying ICE bed capacity was still insufficient and that county jails needed more resources to honor detainers. Mark Schlachman of FSU Law offered historical context, noting prior state-federal cooperation efforts and warning of unintended consequences, while several public witnesses opposed the bill as unconstitutional, costly, and harmful to immigrant families and the economy. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Florida Policy Institute, AFL-CIO, and immigrant advocacy groups argued the bill would invite litigation, encourage racial profiling, harm the workforce and higher education, and punish law-abiding immigrants and their families. They emphasized that immigration is a federal matter, that K-12 education must be provided regardless of status, and that removing in-state tuition would reduce access to college and hurt Florida’s economy. Some speakers urged the committee to grandfather current students if the tuition waiver is repealed. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote reflected in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• have been electing people who don't pay have been electing people who don't pay pass<00:12:43.040
• Anybody that needs a nickel back?
• other groups did pay that right there. other groups did pay that right there.
• But the and and pay their claims.
• So back to the towns and cities sector. So back to the towns and cities etc<01:49:11.119> etc.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They were already paying 3/4%. trust. They were already paying 3/4%.
• cost of health insurance before 2010, stepped back to just paying for the cost of new retired teachers
• <00:33:00.159> the<00:33:00.399> cost stepped back to just paying for the cost stepped
• back to just paying for the cost of<00:33:01.360> new<00:33:01.600> retired<00:33:02.080
• <00:48:50.480> more they could pay and they could pay more they could pay and they could pay

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:35 Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:55 Approval of Minutes: 00:02:56 Deferred Compensation Authority Update: 00:03:12 Retiree Health Update - TRS: 00:15:58 Retiree Health Update - KPPA: 00:56:13 Adjournment: 01:20:33, 958, all

Summary: The Public Pension Oversight Board received updates from the Kentucky Public Employees Deferred Compensation Authority and the Teachers Retirement System. Chris Biddle reported that deferred compensation assets had grown to about $4.787 billion with roughly 88,000 participants, crediting auto-enrollment, targeted marketing around pay raises, and retiree-focused services. He said the board’s self-directed brokerage account, authorized by last year’s legislation, is being designed around a $40,000 account-balance threshold with up to 25% transferable into the brokerage window, tentatively for July 1 of the coming year. He also described the free financial planning program, which has been used by about 3,300 to 3,500 participants with an 87% return rate, and noted that the plan is currently in a fee holiday; members asked about the fee structure and whether the CFP service is provided through Nationwide, which Biddle confirmed. Board members praised the deferred compensation program’s growth and asked for the legislation referenced by Biddle. He said the plan’s annual fees are capped, with a $1 monthly fee plus other charges up to a $225 cap, for a maximum of $237 per year absent a managed account. He also said the program is seeking unified payroll access to expand participation, especially among teachers, and that prior lineup changes saved about $6 million annually in participant fees. Bo Barnes of TRS then addressed retired teachers’ health insurance, first clarifying a prior question about declining federal contributions to the retirement annuity trust. He explained that federally funded school positions generated contributions that rose from $72 million in 2019 to $109 million in 2022, then fell to $85 million this year, with a projection of $80 million over the next three years; if those dollars do not come from federal sources, they would have to be replaced through the SEEK formula. Barnes then reviewed TRS health coverage, explaining that the statutory contract guarantees access to group coverage but not fixed premium levels, and that TRS administers two retiree plans: KEHP for retirees under 65 or otherwise not Medicare-eligible, and MEHP for retirees 65 and older or Medicare-eligible. Barnes said TRS completed RFPs for the 2026 plan year, retaining Express Scripts for prescription drugs and switching the Medicare Advantage medical provider from UnitedHealthcare to Humana, while keeping plan design, provider access, out-of-pocket costs, and benefits materially unchanged. He noted a modest hearing-aid improvement of $500 per ear beginning in 2026. He also reported that the TRS Board approved the maximum state contribution for KEHP at $1,044.96, up from $930.76, an 18% increase that he said would require about $15 million to $16 million more annually, while the MEHP premium would drop from $210 to $200 per month because of the new contract. Using the 2024 valuation, he said the KEHP increase would slightly reduce the health trust funded ratio from 80.4% to 80.1% and raise unfunded liability from $4.036 billion to $4.051 billion. Barnes closed by reviewing the 2010 shared-responsibility reforms that shifted retiree health costs away from a pay-as-you-go model, including phased employee and district contributions and Commonwealth stabilization funding. No votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.