Video & Transcript Research : 'multihazard plan'

Page 47 of 500
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House of Representatives Apr 1st, 2026

Louisiana House Floor Meeting

Bills: HR91, HR92, HR93, HCR44, HR84, HR85, HR86, HR87, HR88, HR89, HR90, HCR42, HCR43, SCR21, HB483, HB484, HB893, HB1087, HB1088, HB1089, HB1090, HB1091, HB1092, HB1093, HB1094, HB1095, HB1096, HB1097, HB1098, HB1099, HB1100, HB1101, HB1102, HB1103, HB1104, HB1105, HB1106, HB1107, HB1108, HB1109, HB1110, HB1111, HB1112, HB1113, HB1114, HB1116, HB1117, HB1118, HB1119, HB1120, HB1121, HB1122, HB1123, HB1124, HB1125, HB1126, HB1127, HB1128, HB1129, HB1130, HB1131, HB1132, HB1133, HB1134, HB1135, HB1136, HB1137, HB1138, HB1139, HB1140, HB1141, HB1142, HB1143, HB1144, HB1145, HB1146, HB1147, HB1148, HB1149, HB1150, HB1151, HB1152, HB1153, HB1154, HB1155, HB1156, HB1157, HB1158, HB1159, HB1160, HB1161, HB1162, HB1163, HB1164, HB1165, HB1166, HB1167, HB1168, HB1169, HB1170, HB1171, HB1172, HB1173, HB1174, HB1175, HB1176, HB1177, HB1178, HB1179, HB1180, HB1181, HB1182, HB1183, HB1184, HB1185, HB1186, HB1187, HB1188, HB1189, HB1190, HB1191, HB1192, HB1193, HB1194, HB1195, HB1196, HB1197, HB1198, HB1199, HB1200, HB1201, HB1202, HB1203, HB1204, HB1205, HB1206, HB1207, HB1208, HB1209, HB1210, HB1211, HB1212, HB1213, HB1214, HB1215, HB1216, HB1217, HB1218, HB1219, HB1220, HB1221, HB1222, HB1223, HB1224, HB1225, HB1226, HB1227, HB1228, HB1229, HB1230, HB1231, SB1, SB54, SB82, SB87, SB92, SB93, SB99, SB104, SB113, SB114, SB115, SB123, SB129, SB133, SB161, SB162, SB224, SB236, SB275, SB280, SB289, SB305, SB310, SB325, SB330, SB339, SB350, SB359, SB382, SB410, SB412, HCR10, HB54, HB55, HB67, HB73, HB125, HB133, HB158, HB168, HB169, HB191, HB195, HB205, HB225, HB245, HB280, HB283, HB296, HB319, HB325, HB339, HB399, HB407, HB448, HB482, HB550, HB591, HB821, HB826, HB992, HB995, HB1085, HB1086, HR15, HR20, HCR14, HCR6, HCR19, HB861, HB889, HB904, HB907, HB908, HB929, HB1009, HB13, HB23, HB25, HB32, HB41, HB90, HB120, HB121, HB122, HB127, HB138, HB139, HB141, HB179, HB187, HB213, HB247, HB286, HB332, HB344, HB357, HB367, HB370, HB462, HB505, HB527, HB537, HB605, HB680, HB681, HB725, HB780, HB782, HB847, HB892, HB911, HB916, HB1012, HB81, HB134, HB154, HB163, HB170, HB194, HB217, HB220, HB254, HB259, HB290, HB308, HB311, HB360, HB382, HB401, HB410, HB417, HB463, HB575, HB592, HB718, HB723, HB750, HB755, HB776, HB812, HB844, HB882, HB888, HB961, HB966, HB980, HB228, HB289, HB735, HB796, HB284, HB301, HB722, HB468, HB546, HB746, HB842, HB923, HB46, HB166, HB349, HB352, HB436, HB588, HB140, HB429, HB827, HB953, HB901, HB9, HB52, HB58, HB193, HB400, HB570, HB577, HB582, HB733, HB747, HB868, HB952
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House of Representatives Apr 13th, 2026

Louisiana House Floor Meeting

LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

House of Representatives Apr 8th, 2026

Louisiana House Floor Meeting

OK
CA
Transcript Highlights:
  • planning document.
  • Planning as a planning commissioner for many years, the general plan is very key to how we build communities
  • general plans.
  • on planning consultants to prepare housing elements, general plan updates, specific plans, zoning ordinance
  • the general plan.
Summary: The committee first heard AB 253, by Assembly Member Ward and presented by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, which would allow licensed third-party professionals to review certain post-entitlement permits if a local building department would take more than 30 days. Supporters, including California YIMBY, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Housing Action Coalition, the Bay Area Council, SPUR, and Abundant Housing LA, said the bill would reduce permitting delays and help housing production. League of Cities and the California State Association of Counties expressed concerns but were not formally opposed. Members voiced strong support, and the bill passed the committee 10-0 to Appropriations. The committee then held an informational hearing on California’s general plan. The first panel, led by UC Davis professor Catherine Brinkley, gave an overview of the general plan structure, required elements, update cycles, and the new PlanSearch database that makes adopted plans searchable statewide. She emphasized that general plans are long-term, locally tailored documents that integrate housing, transportation, safety, environmental justice, and other policy areas, and noted that many plans and elements are outdated. Members asked about update timelines, public participation, and whether AI tools could help with drafting and analysis. A second panel of local government representatives described the practical challenges of preparing and updating general plans, especially in rural and small jurisdictions. Speakers from Calaveras County, Sacramento, San Joaquin County, and Fountain Valley cited staffing shortages, consultant availability, funding constraints, CEQA and outreach costs, changing state mandates, and the difficulty of keeping plans aligned with local conditions and board turnover. They asked for more funding, more time, clearer prioritization, and more flexibility. A third panel from the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation explained its role in issuing general plan guidelines, technical advisories, and annual planning surveys, and said it is updating its guidance through 2027 to reflect recent housing, climate, safety, environmental justice, and open space laws. No public comment was offered, and the informational hearing was adjourned.
WA

Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

Select Committee on Pension Policy Jun 16th, 2026 at 10:00 am

Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • our plans.
  • In 2019, the default plan changed from Plan 3 to Plan 2 for all of the systems.
  • So starting off with Plan 2, Plan 2 is a defined benefit plan.
  • So Plan 3 and Plan 2 were actually designed.
  • So Plan 2 members... Service credit in the plan and any future pension in the plan.
Keywords: 904, all
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement - 03/11/25

Minnesota Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • > you so our plans plan funding improved you so our plans plan funding improved you notice<00:
  • So those five plans are the general employees plan, the correctional plan, the police and fire plan.
  • So those five plans are the general employees plan, the correctional plan, the police and fire plan.
  • So those five plans are the general employees plan, the correctional plan, the police and fire plan.
  • plan the correctional plan is and fire plan the correctional plan is doing<00:42:22.480> better
Keywords: 1187, senate, all
FL

Florida 2025 Regular Session

December 10, 2025 - 01:00 PM

Transcript Highlights:
  • THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES ARE GOING TO GO PLAN BY PLAN. I WON'T BE READING THE DATA FOR EACH PLAN.
  • CARE PLAN.
  • PLAN.
  • PLAN.
  • PLAN.
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement - 02/24/26

Minnesota Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • positive for this plan. positive for this plan.
  • um one of our smaller State patrol plan um one of our smaller plans, plans, plans, the<00:25:40.400>
  • plan, and police and fire plan.
  • plan.
  • plan.
Keywords: 1187, senate, all
FL

Florida 2025 Regular Session

November 5, 2025 - 01:30 PM

Transcript Highlights:
  • These measures allow for the comparison of Florida's health plans with other health plans and other state
  • plans that operated state wide.
  • The comprehensive care plan.
  • There is only one plan that has a child welfare specialty product, but there are 7 plans that have an
  • and dental plans to achieve and maintain high performance. dental plans to achieve and maintain high
ND

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Industry, Business and Labor Apr 8th, 2025 at 02:45 pm

Industry, Business and Labor

Transcript Highlights:
  • So what's the plan?
  • So what's the plan?
  • So from a plan perspective, I mean from a long-term plan perspective, I mean, from a long-term plan perspective
  • the plan design?
  • You're jumping from the basic plan to the high deductible plan.
Bills: SB2160
Summary: The committee resumed work on Senate Bill 2160, which would move the Public Employees Retirement System health plan from grandfathered to non-grandfathered status under the Affordable Care Act. PERS officials Rebecca Frickie and Derek Holbein explained that the bill would allow more flexibility in plan design, including higher deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket maximums, while also adding enhanced preventive benefits. They clarified that ACA “essential health benefits” apply to individual and small-group markets, not to PERS as a large employer, and that the bill’s projected cost increases were based on actuarial estimates and prior bid scenarios from Sanford and Blue Cross Blue Shield. Members debated whether the bill would actually save money or simply shift costs to employees. Supporters argued that non-grandfathered status would create more levers to manage medical inflation and could produce net premium savings through plan redesign, citing prior bid comparisons showing potential reductions of 1% to 8% depending on the option. Opponents, including Representative Schauer and North Dakota United president Nick Archelette, questioned how the state would pay for the estimated $25 million to $30 million in added benefits and warned that employees could face higher out-of-pocket costs amid already strained household budgets. Frickie said the legislature would control funding decisions and that current law requiring the state to pay full family premiums could be changed only by statute. The committee also discussed reserve funding, with members noting that a $4.3 million reserve draw in the bill was intended to cover the final months of the biennium and could be modified. After testimony and discussion, Vice Chair Johnson moved a do-pass recommendation and referral to Appropriations. The motion passed 10-3-1, with Representatives Ostlie, Schatz, and Schauer voting no. Representative Gump agreed to carry the bill.
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Insurance Jun 4th, 2026

Insurance

Transcript Highlights:
  • ERISA, state and local government plans, university plans, TRS and ERS plans, and most church plans.
  • plans.
  • The active plan, which is our largest plan, is self-funded. The early retiree plan is self-funded.
  • ERISA plans just use a health plan as an administrator.
  • plan and a low plan.
Keywords: 1184, house, all
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Health Finance and Policy Committee 3/19/25

Health Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • <00:15:32.800> uh their plan based on which plan uh their plan based on which plan uh provides
  • /c><00:43:07.599> from<00:43:07.760> the<00:43:07.920> plans, plan f plan plan filings
  • from the plans, plan f plan plan filings from the plans, usually<00:43:08.640> in<00:43:08.800
  • plan.
  • plan.
Keywords: 1183, house
ND

North Dakota 2026 1st Special Session

Employee Benefits Programs Committee May 7th, 2026

Employee Benefits Programs Committee

Transcript Highlights:
  • It is a high-deductible plan.
  • plan, and employees starting to pay, single or family, for part of their medical plan.
  • plan.
  • It clarifies that benefits from certain plans are exempt, and it adds plans to already existing plans
  • It clarifies that benefits from certain plans are exempt, and it adds plans to already existing plans
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.
ND

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

Employee Benefits Programs Committee May 7th, 2026

Transcript Highlights:
  • It is a high deductible plan.
  • plan.
  • It clarifies that benefits from certain plans are—so it adds plans to already existing plans in the Century
  • It clarifies that benefits from certain plans are—so it adds plans to already existing plans in the Century
  • Retirement plans under PERS.
Summary: The Employee Benefits Committee met to approve prior minutes, hear presentations on state employee health insurance, compensation, leave, and related policy issues, and then recess for lunch. PERS reviewed the history and structure of the state health plan, noting the long-standing state-paid family coverage, cost-control measures, wellness incentives, the current grandfathered PPO and high-deductible options, and the effects of recent benefit mandates such as insulin caps, prosthetic coverage, medication management, prescription copay changes, and ambulance balance-billing limits. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact of adding benefits and the possible cost of moving to a non-grandfathered plan, while PERS and HRMS emphasized that health insurance remains the top-ranked employee benefit and that any major plan changes should be considered carefully. HRMS also presented compensation comparisons showing state pay generally below private-market benchmarks, discussed targeted market equity adjustments, identified ongoing recruitment and retention concerns in fields like nursing, IT, engineering, and attorneys, and reviewed leave policies, tuition reimbursement, and family leave comparisons with neighboring states. Job Service provided labor market data showing low unemployment, high labor force participation, and wage growth that still trails some neighboring markets, and OMB explained that prevailing wage requirements apply to federally funded projects under Davis-Bacon, not to ordinary state contracts. After lunch, the committee took up the required process for health insurance mandate bills and adopted an amendment to Joint Rule 211. The amendment clarified that the deadline for submitting mandate measures is intended to allow time for all required reports, including both the cost-benefit analysis and any Employee Benefits Committee actuarial report, while leaving the existing deadline unchanged. The amendment was adopted on a roll call vote, with several members voting yes and a few no votes recorded. The committee then moved into its jurisdiction review of bill drafts, beginning with a bill that would automatically renew pre-tax dental and vision elections; members debated whether it had any actuarial or administrative impact on PERS or the state, and the chair explained that the committee’s role was only to decide whether further analysis was needed before later testimony and recommendations.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • Not more expensive, plan or that plan.
  • but that plan or any plan that's the but that plan or any plan that's the maximum<00:25:49.520> amount
  • of their plan. of their plan.
  • . plan. plan.
  • . plan. plan.
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.
ND

North Dakota 2026 1st Special Session

Employee Benefits Programs Committee May 7th, 2026 at 10:00 am

Employee Benefits Programs Committee

Transcript Highlights:
  • It is a high deductible plan.
  • Dakota, the other person plan.
  • Dakota, the other person plan.
  • plan.
  • Are you planning to give us...
Keywords: 908, all
CA

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Assembly Insurance Committee May 28th, 2025

Transcript Highlights:
  • That's kind of the Fair Plan.
  • The Fair Plan now covers farmers. The Fair Plan now covers farmers and farms in general.
  • Plan has, theoretically.
  • Do they have plans to do that? Because we don't have a plan to do that.
  • Some have two because they have beach plans and wind plans.
Summary: The Assembly Insurance Committee held an oversight hearing on the California Fair Plan, focused on the plan’s rapid growth, its financial stability after the January Southern California wildfires, and its role as the insurer of last resort. Fair Plan officials explained that the plan was created in 1968, is a not-for-profit involuntary association of licensed property insurers, and is intended to be a temporary safety net until policyholders can return to the admitted market. They emphasized that the plan is not a state agency or taxpayer-funded, but is regulated by the Department of Insurance and supported by member-company assessments if claims exceed available funds. Victoria Roach and Armand Feliciano said the Fair Plan has grown sharply since 2018 and especially after market pullbacks by major insurers, reaching about 575,000 policies and roughly $600 billion in exposure by spring 2025. They noted that growth is increasingly occurring in lower wildfire-risk areas, where the plan can sometimes be cheaper than the voluntary market, and said this undermines depopulation back into the private market. They also discussed recent policy expansions, including coverage for farms, higher residential and commercial limits, and pending or proposed changes such as AB 290, SB 525, and AB 226, which would add tools like a line of credit and bond access. A major portion of the hearing addressed the January wildfire losses and the plan’s financial response. Fair Plan officials said they assessed member insurers for $1 billion after determining claims and cash flow would exceed available resources, and that the process was approved quickly and paid smoothly, with more than 80% of the assessment collected within 10 days. They also described the reinsurance tower, the plan’s limited surplus, and the need for actuarially sound rates to reduce future reliance on assessments. On claims handling, they said the plan has received over 5,500 claims from the fires, has paid more than $2.9 billion so far, expects total payments near $4 billion, and has focused on advancing payments quickly for total losses and other urgent needs. Members questioned the plan’s solvency, the growth in non-wildfire areas, claim denials, smoke-loss coverage, and how depopulation works. Roach said most closed claims without payment were duplicates rather than denials, and that smoke claims require direct physical loss under the policy, with coverage determined case by case. Public commenters from the California Building Industry Association and the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of California said the Fair Plan’s growth reflects a weak voluntary market, inadequate rates, and insurer fear of future assessments, and urged support for rate increases and AB 226. The hearing concluded with no vote, but with a commitment from Fair Plan officials to follow up on unanswered questions and continue providing more transparency through public data and website disclosures.
WA

Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

Select Committee on Pension Policy Sep 16th, 2025

Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:
  • So, current plan health summary: decreasing contribution rates for most plans.
  • They primarily impact the open plans, so your plans 2, your plans 3.
  • Just that the plan isn't done yet. The plan is ahead of where it needs to be.
  • Pers 1, Plans 1, COLA.
  • plan design.
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.