Transcript Highlights:

• But surely they'd do that because you register with the IRS and where do you file your federal taxes?
• That would be one because it's tough to lie to the IRS. So I would throw that in.
• That is actually, nobody wants to lie to the IRS. The IRS or I. Thank you.
• That is actually, nobody wants to lie to the IRS, or I hope to us either.
• So the IRS—that's a very, very good point.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Given these risks, we urge the Committees to provide the ERS an opportunity to petition the IRS for a
• We are attempting to conform ERS statutes with current IRS requirements.
• The IRS amends its requirements periodically to provide a required minimum distribution date, and we
• want to conform with IRS requirements in order to protect our tax-exempt status.
• want to conform with IRS requirements in order to protect our tax-exempt status.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered Senate Bills 470, 828, 730, and 1383. SB 470 would create a deferred retirement option program for police officers. The Employees Retirement System warned it could worsen the system’s $14.1 billion unfunded liability by stopping employer and employee contributions during the DROP period, and the Attorney General raised possible tax-qualified status, Internal Revenue Code, and age-discrimination concerns. Police and other supporters testified in favor, but the committees ultimately recommended deferring the bill indefinitely. SB 828 would expand workers’ compensation medical benefits for firefighters to cover an additional respiratory condition. The Department of Labor and Industrial Relations and the Hawaii Firefighters Association supported the measure, citing occupational exposure and health risks. The committees recommended passage with amendments, and the motion was adopted by both committees. SB 730, which concerns allowance on service retirements, drew support from the Department of Human Resources Development and the Department of Law Enforcement, but also comments from the Attorney General and ERS. DHRD said the bill could help recruitment and retention but requested more time to work on language with ERS, Budget and Finance, and the AG’s office. The committees postponed decision-making until Friday, February 7, at 3:15 p.m. in Conference Room 225. SB 1383, relating to fire protection, received broad support from the Governor’s office, Department of Defense, DLNR, Hawaiian Electric, and others. The committees agreed to pass it with amendments, including language suggested by the Hawaii Insurance Council on wildfire-related insurance issues and a committee report link to the Lina fire forward-looking report, phase three. The amended recommendation was adopted by both committees. Later in the meeting, the committees also heard SB 1360 and SB 1361 on ERS administrative and reporting matters, SB 340 on HLRB enforcement authority, and SB 997 on energy; SB 1360 and SB 1361 were presented as housekeeping measures, SB 340 drew disagreement between the Attorney General and HLRB over enforcement authority, and SB 997 was amended to incorporate prevailing-wage renewable energy rate language from SB 743 and then passed with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> scholarship granting organizations to scholarship granting organizations to the<00:47:59.280> IRS
• the IRS. the IRS.
• or more during a calendar year, the payer was required to file form 1099-MISC or 1099-NEC with the IRS
• and provide a copy to NEC with the IRS and provide a copy to the<00:49:57.760> recipient<00:49
• hasn't considered or is maybe the IRS hasn't considered or is aware<00:59:07.040> of.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Secretary Gorowitz said the bill also makes adjustments to DFML contributions to comply with new IRS
• Now, the background I promised: In early 2025, the IRS released new guidance, long-expected guidance,
• The remaining 60% of medical leave benefits paid out, applying again the IRS guidance to our existing
• The remaining 60% of medical leave benefits paid out, applying again the IRS guidance to our existing
• this 60% of medical leave benefits that correspond to the large employer's contribution, right, the IRS

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on H. 4975, Governor Healey’s bill to manage the impact of the federal “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OB3) on Massachusetts tax law and state revenues. Administration officials, led by Secretary of Administration and Finance Matt Gorowitz, said OB3 would otherwise reduce FY26 revenue by about $442 million and argued for a phased-in conformity approach that would preserve the current-year budget while still adopting selected federal business tax provisions over time. The proposal would phase in the research and experimental expenditure deduction first, delay other major corporate provisions for two years, extend the pass-through entity excise to income subject to the 4% surtax, add a one-year delay mechanism for future federal tax changes over $20 million, limit opportunity zone benefits to Massachusetts investments, and make smaller technical changes to DFML contributions and casino reporting thresholds. Committee members questioned the rationale for phasing in rather than fully decoupling, the effect on the budget if the bill did not pass, and the treatment of opportunity zones, the surtax, and future federal tax changes. Public testimony was split. MassBudget, Progressive Massachusetts, and several labor and public-sector groups urged the committee to permanently decouple from the federal corporate tax changes rather than delay them, arguing that the bill would still send state revenue to corporate tax breaks, often for investments outside Massachusetts, and that the state should protect funding for schools, health care, human services, and other public services. The Massachusetts Society of CPAs supported the administration’s timing and the research-and-development provisions, citing filing deadlines and the importance of certainty for businesses and startups. Business and tax experts also testified that rushed conformity can create revenue losses and that the governor’s review-and-delay framework was a prudent improvement, though some said decoupling should be the default if the Legislature does not act. Unite Here Local 26 testified against sections 3 and 4, which would raise the slot-machine jackpot reporting threshold from $1,200 to $2,000, arguing the current threshold helps with problem-gambling intervention, preserves slot attendant jobs, and generates revenue. Several union leaders, including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, AFT Massachusetts, SEIU 509, the Massachusetts Building Trades, the AFL-CIO, and 1199 SEIU, urged permanent decoupling, warning that OB3’s federal tax cuts and related spending reductions would worsen budget pressures, harm public services, and shift costs onto workers, patients, and schools. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• language to comply with the federal IRS language to comply with the federal IRS code<01:04:25.079
• Leneski, on the IRS maximums for contribution: If there is a paid-on-call department, would that count
• maximums for contribution so on the IRS maximums for contribution so if<01:25:27.719> the<01:
• to make sure they didn't have an IRS to make sure they didn't have an IRS penalty<01:25:44.840><
• wrap there is no other business some IR wrap there is no other business and<01:52:29.520> with

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I did not uh crypto users to the IRS.
• and I received a letter from the IRS and I received a letter from the IRS saying<03:41:30.798>
• taxes, the IRS has my cryptocurrency taxes, the IRS has my cryptocurrency transaction<03:43:06.718>
• That was not IRS seizure of my data.
• So not records go to the IRS and so on.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee opened a hearing on House Bill 1067-FN, which would formalize and expand mental health courts in New Hampshire and create a grant-based funding structure for them. Representative Mark Pearson, the prime sponsor, described the bill as a bipartisan, compassionate, and cost-effective approach that would connect people with mental illness to treatment and supervision instead of incarceration, while still holding them accountable. He said the proposal was developed with input from the judicial branch, law enforcement, corrections, mental health organizations, and others, and emphasized that local courts could tailor programs to their needs. Committee members questioned the bill’s fiscal note, whether the legislature had previously studied the issue, how the program would be funded, and whether the bill should more explicitly address treatment, prevention, and data collection. Representative Buzz Sher, who helped develop the bill, explained how mental health courts work, including referral, clinical and public-safety assessments, case management, goal-setting, and graduation from the program. He said existing New Hampshire mental health courts are mostly partial and county-funded, and that the bill would formalize them, set standards, and allow grant funding. He also cited data from Georgia and New Hampshire suggesting significant savings from reduced incarceration and related costs. Members also raised concerns about due process, whether people not formally charged could be swept into the system, and whether individuals with violent offenses or domestic violence histories could be diverted inappropriately. Sher responded that only people already in the criminal justice process are eligible and that courts use safety assessments to screen out most violent cases. The committee requested that Sher file supporting financial data from other jurisdictions, and he agreed to do so. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• When we talk about organizations that spend money in elections, 501(c)(3)s, by law according to the IRS
• the extent that we make grants to 501(c)(3)s, they're already prohibited from doing that by federal IRS
• uh cannot spend according to the IRS uh cannot spend money<00:04:03.439> in<00:04:03.799>
• <00:05:18.960> law<00:05:19.560> they doing that by federal IRS law they doing that
• by federal IRS law they cannot<00:05:20.120> spend<00:05:20.400> money<00:05:20.639>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Form 990 if it was required to do so by the IRS.
• And what we are clarifying is that under IRS rules, And what we are clarifying is that under IRS rules
• I think that gets at a federal IRS tax treatment question.
• But because the state of Florida every year in its tax package adopts the IRS code for purposes of our
• I think that gets at a federal IRS tax treatment question.

Summary: The House met on the final day of session, swore in Representatives Boyles and Hodgers, and observed a moment of silence for the Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, as well as for Representative Rosenwald’s father. The chamber then moved into final budget work, with leaders outlining the plan to take up H.J.R. 5019, HB 7031, HB 5017, HB 5015, and then the general appropriations act once the Senate transmitted it. H.J.R. 5019, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand the budget stabilization fund, was explained and amended to raise the rainy day fund cap, require annual deposits, and allow withdrawals for critical state needs by a two-thirds vote; it passed 100-1. The House then adopted the conference report on HB 7031, the tax package. The bill repeals the business rent tax and aviation fuel tax, delays the natural gas fuel tax, creates or expands several sales tax holidays and exemptions, including permanent exemptions for disaster-preparedness items, hunting/fishing/camping items, and ammunition and firearms-related purchases, and makes changes to property, corporate income, local tax, and economic development provisions. Members debated the removal of recurring housing trust fund and transit-related revenue streams, the new ammunition exemption, and the data center tax changes; supporters argued the package reduces taxes and preserves annual budget flexibility, while opponents raised concerns about housing, transportation, and gun violence. The conference report passed 93-7. HB 5017, creating a debt reduction program funded by a recurring transfer to retire state bonds early, passed unanimously. HB 5015, the state group insurance conforming bill, which directs DMS to develop a formulary management plan and codifies the administrative health insurance assessment, also passed. The House then began explanation and questions on the fiscal year 2025-26 general appropriations act, described as a $115.1 billion budget that is down $3.8 billion from the current year and includes more than $12 billion in reserves. Subcommittee chairs summarized major spending areas, including pre-K-12 funding increases, health care funding for Medicaid, KidCare, nursing homes, opioid treatment, and mental health, transportation and economic development funding, environmental and water projects, higher education, state administration, justice, and information technology. Questions focused on school vouchers, inflationary pressures on school districts, and the adequacy of funding for housing, transportation, and other priorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because gold and silver are not currently useful as functional money, the IRS views it as a collectible
• The IRS views it as a collectible subject to the highest level of capital gains tax.
• That means if gold maintains its purchasing power, the IRS will tax away the quote gains.

Bills: HB2123, HB2140

Keywords: bullion, depository, legal tender, Arizona, finances, precious metals, financial transactions, investment, state treasurer, gold bullion, treasury management, financial regulations, 1182, all

Summary: The Committee on Regulatory Oversight heard two bills from Representative Lisa Fink related to gold and silver. HB 2123 would create an Arizona Bullion Depository under the State Treasurer, allow a third-party administrator and vault services, require insurance for deposits, and recognize gold and silver as legal tender. Fink and a supporter testified that the bill would make bullion more practical for everyday use through a debit-card-style system, provide an inflation hedge, and expand access beyond wealthy investors. During committee discussion, one member voted present because of the bill’s rulemaking language, while others voted yes; the bill received a do pass recommendation by a 4-0-1 vote. The committee then considered HB 2140, which would allow state and local governments to store bullion in the depository, authorize the State Treasurer to place up to 10% of state monies in bullion, and require the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions to adopt rules. Fink argued the bill would diversify state assets and protect against inflation and counterparty risk, citing Utah’s treasurer and constitutional support for gold and silver. A member asked whether the rulemaking provision could be removed, and Fink said she was open to discussing that with the treasurer. With no public testimony, the committee approved HB 2140 on a 4-0-1 vote, and then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because my understanding, I think I'm right on this, the IRS would impute to Senator Scott's questions
• The IRS would impute income to the borrower even if interest is not charged by the state.
• And if it was not paid, that becomes then an IRS obligation.
• And then I'll get to the next question, which is, would the IRS have liens on the property itself?
• This and the MFA will do it correctly without violating IRS rules. Yeah, Mr.

Bills: SB273, SB37, SB100

Keywords: SB273, appropriations, general fund, hold harmless, local government finance, municipal revenue, county revenue, correctional facility, jail contract, private prison, detention facility, immigration detention, revenue bonds, clawback, child welfare, juvenile justice, protective services, school improvement, New MexiCare, aging services

Transcript Highlights:

• I just want to point out that there's a $650 difference between what the IRS prescribes for the medical
• I just want to point out that there's a $650 difference between what the IRS prescribes for the medical
• And the IRS does typically increase the rates annually.
• IRS and what our rules provide. IRS and what our rules provide.
• I just want to point out that there's a $650 difference between what the IRS prescribes for the medical

Bills: SB2119, SB3131, SB3069, SB3180, SB2137, SB2993, SB2778, SB2672, SB2014, SB2967

Keywords: reimbursement, public employees, travel costs, government travel policy, finance management, job title, administrative assistant, executive assistant, state personnel, civil service, modernization, employment standards, DAGS, Department of Accounting and General Services, comptroller, civil service exemption, collective bargaining exemption, public works special project branch, specialized public works, information technology modernization

Transcript Highlights:

• , I've never had in committee their 990s, their audited financial reports, or annual reports, their IRS
• determination letter to know that IRS determination letter to know that they<00:34:10.800> actually
• or even here that they're duly the IRS or even here that they're duly organized<00:34:15.960> here
• determination letter to make sure IRS determination letter to make sure that<00:35:29.000> they're
• <00:37:54.480> um of that data against the IRS um of that data against the IRS um nonprofit

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from State Auditor Judy Randall and Deputy Legislative Auditor Jody Mason Rodriguez on the Office of the Legislative Auditor’s 2023 report, “Oversight of State-Funded Grants to Nonprofit Organizations.” Randall explained that the report takes a broad look at how Minnesota manages grants, building on earlier work that helped lead to the Office of Grants Management (OGM) in 2007. She emphasized that the new recommendation-tracking booklet in members’ packets is meant to help the legislature see which audit recommendations have been implemented, partially implemented, or not implemented, and to support oversight rather than assign blame. Rodriguez summarized the report’s findings: Minnesota’s grants management policies contain many important practices, but they often lack enough detail for agencies to implement them consistently. The office found pervasive noncompliance in recent years and identified weak statutory enforcement as a major reason. She reviewed how grants flow from the legislature to agencies and then to nonprofit grantees and subgrantees, and noted that state agencies spent an average of about $514 million annually on nonprofit grants from fiscal years 2018 through 2022, awarding grants to about 2,400 nonprofits. The report found OGM policies partially reflected 17 of 24 recommended grant-management practices, but examples of missing detail included no required risk-based monitoring, no minimum standards for progress reports, telephone-only monitoring visits allowed, and no deadline for closeout reviews. The auditors said some recommendations have been acted on since the report, including 2023 statutory changes that led OGM to revise its pre-award financial review policy and set a timeline for closeout reviews, though other recommendations remain only partially implemented. They also discussed repeat compliance problems across agencies, including conflict-of-interest documentation, and said agencies are beginning to improve by automating checklists and disclosure processes. In response to member questions, the auditors said training is important and should likely be required for grants staff, though not necessarily with highly specific statutory language; they also said grant managers vary widely across agencies, making baseline training especially useful. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the presentation, and the chair noted that OGM would be invited for a future presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Through the use of replacement refunding as the IRS proposes, and based on that, we have done an analysis
• Good note is that Housing New Mexico has never engaged years of IRS documentation of income.
• we never engaged in what used to be called liar loans. are actually very careful about, because by IRS
• The federal government or IRS gives the state of New Mexico a specific amount of volume cap, and there
• some are paid off much earlier, but I think that would help us, you know, in seeing, you know Wise on IRS

Transcript Highlights:

• the first 15 years, the project does not comply with the income and the rent requirements, then the IRS
• income and the rent requirements, then income and the rent requirements, then the<00:19:27.280> IRS
• essentially could recapture the IRS essentially could recapture um<00:19:31.000> those<00:19:
• if they do not if the project the IRS if they do not if the project does<00:19:40.600> not<00
• ,<00:37:02.320> uh recapture from the IRS, uh recapture from the IRS, uh they<00:37:03.640

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have some things where the state has veered off from the IRS law, and we want to follow what
• Any enrolled agent attending that gets IRS education credit agrees to take one low-income tax clinic
• rarely even try to file a state offer, where on the federal level, they routinely file offers with the IRS

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a public hearing on bills related to income and estates, with Chairs James Eldridge and Adrian Madaro presiding and members participating in person and virtually. The committee explained hearing procedures, written testimony deadlines, and the new joint rules for acting on bills. No votes were taken during the hearing. The first major topic was increasing Massachusetts 529 college savings deductions, through House Bill 3151 and Senate Bill 2066. Brad Freeman of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts testified in support, saying the current deduction has encouraged more families to save for college and should be expanded to match other states. He argued the change would help middle-income families and noted the original deduction was designed with a revenue offset and later made permanent. The committee also heard support for House Bill 3010 and Senate Bill 1963, which would exclude the federal Segal AmeriCorps Education Award from Massachusetts taxable income. Beth McGuinness and Lindsay Rooney of the Massachusetts Service Alliance said the tax creates a burden for AmeriCorps members, many of whom have low incomes and use the award directly for tuition or student loans, and that removing the tax would aid recruitment and retention. Another bill, House Bill 3062 on settlements of tax liability, drew testimony from a taxpayer, a tax practitioner, and a legal aid attorney who described the current offer-in-settlement process as too restrictive and underused; they urged changes to make tax debt resolution more equitable and more consistent with federal practice.

Transcript Highlights:

• McMahon is not in charge of the IRS, correct? Representative Kupper: Right.
• So do we rely on the Department of Education secretary to create the tax forms, or the IRS?
• for public schools to utilize the program thank you so i think miss mcmann is not in charge of the irs
• I just Googled the IRS website.
• On December 12th of '25, the IRS put out guidance on this, allowing states to make the advance election

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would align Arizona tax law with the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, including some retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills would exclude three federal provisions: the higher federal SALT deduction, the new senior deduction as written in H.R. 1, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. They would instead include a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers age 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC estimated the package would reduce general fund income tax revenue by about $441.3 million in FY 2026. Members also discussed that the Department of Revenue’s forms had been issued assuming full conformity, and staff and supporters argued the bills were needed quickly to avoid confusion and amended returns during filing season. Committee members and sponsors largely framed the bills as tax relief and a way to provide certainty for taxpayers and preparers. Supporters said the package would help families, seniors, and workers, and noted that the Arizona version was negotiated to keep the overall tax relief roughly comparable to full conformity while shifting benefits away from the SALT deduction and toward child credits, retirement income, and child care. The sponsors also criticized the governor’s executive action and urged prompt passage so taxpayers would know how to file. Opponents argued the bills would reduce state revenue, worsen the budget outlook, and disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Several witnesses and members also raised concerns about the child care deduction, the retirement-income deduction, and the business expensing provisions, while supporters responded that the bill was designed to help working families and encourage saving and investment. Public testimony was mixed. The Arizona Society of Certified Public Accountants and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing early conformity, filing certainty, and reduced confusion for taxpayers and software providers. Opponents included Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, who argued the package would deepen budget problems and favor the wealthy. One witness objected to a federal school-choice-related provision she said was being tied to the bill, though committee members said the measure before them was a tax conformity bill and not a school finance bill. The hearing included extended debate over the fiscal impact, the governor’s prior requests for some of the same tax changes, and whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the legislature later changed course. The transcript ends during testimony from NFIB, with no final committee vote or action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• It can take months and months of discernment from the IRS before you receive that.
• That list in a minute, but it is a very serious thing to get your tax exempt from the IRS.
• You can see here that there are almost 23,000 nonprofits registered with the IRS from Oklahoma.
• churches and religious organizations in Oklahoma, so almost 5,200 of those aren't registered with the IRS
• It literally was one of the first steps I took when I got our new determination letter from the IRS.

Summary: The committee heard an interim study on expanding or simplifying sales tax exemptions for Oklahoma nonprofits. Representatives Stark and Schreiber said the issue has been filed repeatedly over several sessions and framed it as a bipartisan effort to keep more charitable dollars in service of communities rather than paying sales tax. Schreiber also suggested broader tax reform or an omnibus approach rather than continuing to add individual exemptions. Marnie Taylor of the Oklahoma Center for Nonprofits gave an overview of the sector, describing nonprofits as a major part of the state economy and safety net, and argued that many organizations are highly regulated, under-resourced, and facing declining donations and funding. She said the current patchwork of exemptions is uneven and that a blanket or broader exemption would help organizations serving public needs. Committee members asked for sources behind some of the poverty, education, and health rankings cited in her presentation. Several nonprofit leaders testified about how sales tax affects their operations. RG Foods described the cost of opening neighborhood grocery markets in food deserts and said sales tax on a Tulsa project would divert about $85,000 from programming. Jubilee Partners, Skyline Urban Outreach, the Pencil Box, the Tulsa Police Foundation, Blue Rose Ranch, and Legacy Parenting Center each explained how exemption status or the lack of it affects food assistance, school supplies, public safety equipment, animal rescue, and diapers and family support. Members asked follow-up questions about food desert definitions, budgets, and how much sales tax savings would change operations. No vote was taken in the excerpt, but the study concluded with closing remarks emphasizing that the exemption would keep more money in direct services and support the nonprofit sector statewide.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's why we submitted a private letter ruling from the IRS, and I mentioned this at the last two meetings
• And that's so relevant to 5085 because, under that PLR, which was considered by the IRS, there was an
• And the IRS found that that did not meet standards under IRS regulations to pass muster, largely because
• to the committee on 5085, a pension fund that tried to do the exact same thing, and it did not pass IRS
• And it had to do with the IRS considerations for what is being considered to be done to the pensions.

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:

• We share it with both the actuarial consultant as well as our IRS tax compliance consultant.
• rule or an IRS concern or an actuarial concern.
• Whether you want to take jurisdiction and just verify that there's no issues at the IRS level would be
• They had the option not to participate, and they had their IRS folks look at it, and they determined
• I'm just wondering, since the IRS consultants weighed in on the policy requirements, do we need them

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We share it with both the actuarial consultant as well as our IRS tax compliance consultant.
• Davidson, members of the committee, on this bill, I would agree there really doesn't seem to be an IRS
• rule or an IRS concern or an actuarial concern.
• They had their IRS folks look at it and they determined that it conflicted with certain requirements
• I'm just wondering, since the IRS consultants weighed in on the policy requirements, do we need them

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.