Transcript Highlights:

• This high interest rate compounds the debt, making it increasingly difficult for low-income parents to
• And so making this move in the interest rate, it doesn't surprise me going from 12 to 6 might give people
• “So are you in favor of the bill that passed the House that makes it a variable rate, or do you prefer
• It's a variable rate.” “Okay. That's fine. I just want to make sure I know what you're for. Okay.
• I'm not sure that moving the interest rate is going to have any effect if somebody's making a pure interest

Bills: HB40, HB1916, HB1973, HB2524, HB2530, HB3180, HB3421, HB3783, HB4170, HB4213

Keywords: business court, civil procedure, litigation, jurisdiction, arbitration, divorce, property division, family law, court jurisdiction, marital assets, parent-child relationship, birth certificate, identity proof, Family Code, court process, attorney fees, court costs, legal expenses, dispute resolution, child support

Summary: The committee heard several House bills, most of them relating to family law and court procedure, and left each bill pending after testimony. House Bill 1916 would clarify that the court that issued a final divorce decree retains exclusive jurisdiction over later actions involving undivided property. House Bill 1973 would require a certified birth certificate, if reasonably available, to be filed with a SAPCR petition or allow alternative proof of parentage while keeping the information confidential. House Bill 2530 would add qualifications and procedural safeguards for appointing amicus attorneys in SAPCR cases, including notice and hearing requirements, minimum qualifications, conflict rules, and limits on what amicus attorneys may do. House Bill 2524 would make Family Code references to attorney’s fees consistent by using “reasonable and necessary” language. House Bill 3180 would correct a scrivener’s error in the civil discovery rules by changing “settlement” to “statement.” The committee also heard House Bill 4213, which would change the interest rate on overdue child support from the current 6 percent simple interest to a fixed 5 percent and require the Attorney General to report on the impact of the change. Testimony was sharply divided: supporters argued lower interest could improve collections and help low-income obligors catch up, citing research and the size of child-support arrearages; opponents said lowering the rate would reduce incentives to pay and harm custodial parents and children. The Attorney General’s office raised implementation concerns about a House version that would have created a variable rate, while the committee substitute was described as restoring a simple fixed rate. After testimony, the bill was left pending. The committee also discussed House Bill 40, updating business court provisions and supplemental jurisdiction; House Bill 3421, streamlining probate procedures for original wills and copies; and House Bill 417, clarifying venue for lawsuits involving private transfer fees on real property. Each drew limited testimony and was left pending. Finally, House Bill 3783 drew extensive testimony on court-ordered counseling and reunification therapy in family cases. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would protect children and abuse victims from coercive, unregulated reunification practices, while opponents argued it was too broad, could interfere with legitimate therapy and judicial discretion, and might affect military families and other high-conflict cases. The committee heard testimony from judges, therapists, parents, survivors, and advocates, but took no final action and left the bill pending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Foundational to doing that is making sure Medicaid reimbursement rates are adequate.
• Foundational to doing that is making sure Medicaid reimbursement rates are adequate.
• Foundational to doing that is making sure Medicaid reimbursement rates are adequate.
• Foundational to doing that is making sure Medicaid reimbursement rates are adequate.
• 01:23:21.639> possible<01:23:22.000> for rates um make it more possible for rates um make

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the first component of my strategy is incorporating catastrophic modeling into rate making.
• The first component of my strategy is incorporating catastrophic modeling into rate making.
• The second component of my strategy involves incorporating reinsurance costs in the rate making.
• In the meantime, my rate regulation branch, which reviews insurance company rate filings, is making significant
• Who's making... Aspect of the process for these rate filings, who's making money off of it?

Summary: The committee first heard AB 597, a bill to strengthen consumer protections for disaster survivors who use public adjusters. The author and the Department of Insurance said the measure would cap public adjuster fees at 15% for claims tied to declared disasters, require clearer contracts, prohibit solicitation during emergency conditions, and allow consumers to rescind contracts that were solicited during prohibited periods. Insurance industry groups supported the bill, while public adjuster representatives opposed it as written but said they were willing to work on revisions. The committee approved the bill and re-referred it to Appropriations; the roll call was ultimately recorded as 16-0. The committee then held its fourth oversight hearing on the Department of Insurance’s Sustainable Insurance Strategy, with Commissioner Ricardo Lara giving an extensive update on wildfire-related market reforms and consumer protections. He said the recent Southern California wildfires had not derailed the strategy and described actions including advance claim payments, a one-year moratorium on residential non-renewals in affected areas, a new fraud strike team, smoke-damage claim guidance, additional living expense protections, and a consumer claims tracker. He reported more than $12.1 billion in claims paid, over 37,000 claims filed, and more than 7,000 survivors assisted directly. He also discussed related bills and reforms, including AB 597, SB 495, SB 547, SB 429, SB 616, AB 888, and AB 2026. Members questioned the commissioner about the Fair Plan’s growing exposure, the $1 billion assessment, rate increases, non-renewals, underinsurance, and whether the reforms would actually stabilize the market. Lara said the assessment was already approved, that policyholders would not be hit with one large bill because insurers have two years to recover costs, and that the department was pushing insurers to use catastrophe modeling and reinsurance tools in exchange for commitments to write more policies in wildfire-distressed areas. He said the department expects to see market stabilization by 2026, though he emphasized the timeline depends on insurer participation, implementation of the new regulations, and future disaster activity. Members generally expressed support for the goals of the strategy while pressing for clearer expectations for consumers and faster action on mitigation and market reform.

Transcript Highlights:

• It will cap that rate to make it easier for folks to make ends meet and to adjust to this high cost of
• in order to make up for any rate increase that they otherwise would have ...sought.
• in order to make up for any rate increase that they otherwise would have increases in utility rates
• in order to make up for any rate increase that they otherwise would have sought would you agree with
• That's why we try to time out those utility rates to make sure we are sort of spreading the peanut butter

Bills: HB2780, HB4029, HB4030, HCR2052

Keywords: judicial foreclosure, tax lien, redemption rights, excess proceeds, property auction, income tax, federal tax conformity, revenue analysis, legislative session, tax reporting, municipal fees, county fees, utility rates, moratorium, tax classification, local government, inflation, economic stability, tax increases, cost-of-living protection

Transcript Highlights:

• It makes technical updates to streamline and simplify the mechanics of increasing reimbursement rates
• equivalent as well as increases rates equivalent as well as increases rates for<00:08:36.120>
• Foundational to doing that is making sure Medicaid reimbursement rates are adequate.
• making sure Medicaid reimbursement rates making sure Medicaid reimbursement rates are<00:18:47.159
• health reimbursement rate.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: House File 105 was presented by Representatives Beerman and Baker and then laid over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus bill. The bill would implement the remaining mental health and physician service recommendations from DHS’s rate study, including raising certain Medicaid reimbursement rates to at least 100% of Medicare where a Medicare equivalent exists, increasing community-based children’s and adult mental health rates and behavioral health home rates, and phasing in additional increases over three years. The authors said the proposal also addresses master’s-level clinician reimbursement and fee-for-service hospital inpatient mental health services, and they emphasized that the changes are intended to improve access, transparency, and provider stability. Both authors argued that low MA reimbursement rates are driving access problems across Minnesota, especially for children, families, and rural communities. They said providers are struggling to hire and retain staff, clinics are closing or shrinking, and patients are facing long waits, boarding in hospitals, or delayed care. Representative Baker said the issue is personal and described the bill as a phased, long-term approach because of state budget limits and the size of the cost, which he said is in the hundreds of millions but still awaiting a fiscal note. Public testimony was strongly supportive overall. A family physician said higher rates would improve access, keep clinics open, and help patients avoid emergency care, while a Children’s Minnesota mental health leader described more than 1,200 pediatric boarding episodes in 2024 and said outpatient investment is needed to reduce pressure on emergency and inpatient services. A rural provider said her organization had to close an in-home children’s mental health program because of insufficient reimbursement, harming access in underserved counties. A psychologist testifying for the Minnesota Psychological Association supported the bill’s general direction but objected to repealing the pay differential for doctoral-level psychologists, arguing that doctoral training is more extensive and that eliminating the differential could worsen workforce shortages. After testimony and member questions about the bill’s scope and cost, public testimony was closed and the bill was laid over.

Transcript Highlights:

• rates.
• Our BSN rates per region—here, again, in that south region, you can see that BSN rates per region: here
• , are we making up ground?
• . ...and collects pass rates.
• I mean, pass rate, 96% pass rate, if I'm not mistaken.

Summary: The subcommittee met to examine Florida’s nursing education pipeline and the state’s persistently low NCLEX passage rates. Chair Tuck opened by noting the projected nurse shortage and Florida’s ranking near the bottom nationally for first-time NCLEX pass rates. The Department of Health explained the Board of Nursing’s approval process for nursing programs, including application requirements, probation standards, and termination for programs that repeatedly fail passage-rate benchmarks. The Florida Center for Nursing then presented statewide data showing Florida has more test takers than most states, but still trails the national average; the gap has narrowed in recent years, though Florida remains below average. Members focused heavily on why the state continues to underperform, with discussion of faculty shortages, clinical placement constraints, accreditation, student preparedness, and the large share of newer private for-profit programs among those placed on probation. Committee members asked about how probation works, what happens when programs improve, and whether the board requires corrective plans. They also questioned the relationship between program type and outcomes, the effect of Operation Nightingale, and how many students fail and retest. The Florida Center for Nursing said first-attempt pass rates are the standard measure and that students who fail are expected to remediate and retest, though costs vary. The center also said Florida’s data shows accredited programs outperform approved or probationary ones, and that the state’s nursing workforce challenges are tied to broader issues such as faculty vacancies, clinical site competition, and student demographics, including many students balancing work, family, and language barriers. A panel of nursing school leaders from public, private nonprofit, and private for-profit institutions then described strategies used to improve outcomes. These included transparent recruitment, early orientation, tutoring, success coaching, stronger faculty development, curriculum mapping to NCLEX standards, higher course benchmarks, mandatory remediation, simulation labs, and commercial NCLEX prep tools such as ATI, Kaplan, and HESI. Several panelists said their programs had improved after probation or had very high passage rates, and they emphasized that student success depends on academic preparation, clinical experience, and support services. Members also asked about tuition, program length, translation into other languages, and faculty recruitment; panelists said costs vary widely, faculty hiring is difficult because hospitals pay more, and some schools are considering medical Spanish and immersion options rather than full curriculum translation.

Transcript Highlights:

• rate.
• We just want to make sure that uh the rate in our increases as opposed to taking 72% of the modeled rate
• rate.
• We just want to make sure that uh the rate in our increases as opposed to taking 72% of the modeled rate
• rates.

Bills: HF2434

Keywords: healthcare, personal care assistance, worker retention, disability services, state funding, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And as I mentioned, the second part of the bill related to the rate-making, I also think is important
• And the second part of the bill related to the rate-making, I also think is important, but I'm confused
• I do agree with some of the comments made by the electrical workers just about how rate-making would
• And so we don't want to have the rate-making result in not enough money in the rate base so that transmission
• economically efficient decision-making by customers who opt onto these rates.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy heard several bills focused on grid reliability, affordability, clean energy infrastructure, and industrial decarbonization. AB 222, by Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan, would require more data reporting on data centers and aim to prevent ratepayers from bearing related grid costs; supporters said better information is needed to plan for rapidly growing electricity demand from AI and data centers, while opponents warned about privacy, security, trade-secret, and cost-shifting concerns. The bill passed the committee on a 13-4 vote, with the roll left open for absent members. AB 941, by Assemblymember Bonta, would impose a 270-day timeline for CPUC review of priority transmission projects to speed clean-energy infrastructure buildout. Supporters argued that transmission delays are slowing California’s climate goals and raising costs, while opponents raised concerns about CEQA process, staffing, and prioritization. The bill passed 15-0. AB 1191, by Assemblymember Tangipa, would make existing large hydroelectric facilities eligible for the Renewable Portfolio Standard; supporters framed it as a way to lower rates and ease affordability pressures, while opponents said it would undermine the purpose of the RPS by substituting existing resources for new renewable development. That bill failed on a 4-11 vote. AB 1280, by Assemblymember Garcia, would expand state grant programs to support thermal energy storage projects for industrial decarbonization. Supporters said it would help modernize manufacturing, cut pollution in disadvantaged communities, and preserve jobs, with broad support from environmental and clean manufacturing groups and no opposition testimony. The bill passed 17-0. AB 1117, by Assemblymember Schultz, would require the CPUC to offer optional dynamic electricity rate tariffs for customers to shift usage away from peak periods; supporters said it could lower bills and improve grid efficiency, while utilities said they were not opposed to the concept but wanted more flexibility and time in the regulatory process. That bill passed 14-0. The committee also approved its consent calendar and other noncontroversial items, with several measures moving forward unanimously.

Transcript Highlights:

• rates all went up.
• <00:08:10.599> and experience rate and a base tax rate and experience rate and a base tax
• is equitable among people who make higher wages and people who make lower wages.
• is equitable among people who make higher wages and people who make lower wages.
• equitable among people who make higher wages and people who make lower wages.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• rate processing the rate making process could not keep up with the rate need that existed due to accumulation
• But you see the you see the kind of the major indicators of what makes a rate filings with within the
• And then even even in the private market when you're talking about actuarily sound rate making, there
• as much rates went up to make those companies financially stable.
• A lot of it is unregulated bias rate making is we don't have necessarily the best data on that.

Transcript Highlights:

• <02:15:34.400> would form of rate making so that that would form of rate making so that that
• are principle of making sure that rates are principle of making sure that rates are just<02:19:46.880
• That was more based on just traditional rate making, those rate increases.
• performance rate making structure.
• The performance rate making structure.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are asking the Legislature to consider making it all a base rate increase. Thank you.
• We are asking the Legislature to consider making it all a base rate increase. Thank you.
• commercial rates.
• Of the amount of the rate? I don't have the rate amount. I don't have the rate amount.
• I think we just had to make it make sense epiphany that it is not making sense to basically leave federal

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health held the first of several hearings on the Governor’s May Revision for health care, with opening remarks focused on the state’s projected $12 billion deficit, looming federal Medicaid changes, and the potential impact on Medi-Cal, public health, reproductive health, and safety-net providers. Several members criticized the proposal as balancing the budget on vulnerable Californians, while others defended the need for cost containment and questioned the administration’s assumptions. The chair set ground rules for respectful, focused questioning and outlined three topics: the Medi-Cal proposals, Proposition 35, and Proposition 56. DHCS Director Michelle Baas presented the May Revision’s Medi-Cal package, saying the department’s budget totals $200.6 billion overall, including $45.2 billion General Fund, and that the proposals are intended to address rising caseloads, pharmacy costs, and managed care spending. She described proposed changes for adults with unsatisfactory immigration status, including a freeze on new full-scope enrollment for those 19 and older, $100 monthly premiums beginning in 2027, elimination of adult dental and long-term care coverage, removal of PPS/RAP payments to FQHCs and rural health clinics for that population, and a pharmacy rebate aggregator. Other proposals included eliminating certain OTC drug classes, removing GLP-1 coverage for weight loss, prior authorization and step therapy changes, reinstating the Medi-Cal asset test, eliminating acupuncture as an optional benefit, allowing utilization management for hospice, raising the managed care minimum medical loss ratio to 90%, reducing PACE capitation rates toward the midpoint of the actuarial range, eliminating the skilled nursing facility workforce and quality incentive program, and suspending the SNF backup power requirement. The LAO said the revised Medi-Cal spending estimate is about $2.5 billion higher than the Governor’s Budget in the budget year, and that the increase appears driven more by higher per-enrollee costs than by caseload alone. The LAO said the budget solutions are concentrated in a few areas, are largely ongoing, and should be considered in light of federal uncertainty, but suggested the Legislature could explore alternatives such as more targeted income thresholds for the undocumented expansion and simpler asset-test rules. Department of Finance officials said the proposals are difficult but necessary to address a third consecutive deficit and rising Medi-Cal costs. Members then pressed the administration on the methodology and impacts of the proposals, especially the enrollment freeze, premiums, asset test, hospice controls, PACE reductions, and the elimination of benefits and provider payments. No votes or formal actions were taken at this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Vice Chair, those are changes. ...that we could make now to bring down the payment error rate
• error rate.
• I don't want to make any commitments about getting the payment error rate to X by 12 months from now.
• It's not that I don't want to make a commitment about the payment error rate specifically; it's that
• So please make sure that you are asking for what you need in order to fix the error rates for reimbursement

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh the only rate study rate studies.
• to Medicare rates.
• primary care OBGYN and outpatient rates. primary care OBGYN and outpatient rates.
• those rates? those rates?
• >> I will make a motion, yes. >> I will make a motion, yes.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on January 12, 2026, to approve the December 10, 2025 minutes and continue finalizing its findings and recommendations. Members reviewed findings on administrative inefficiencies, Medicaid and workforce participation under HR 1, Medicaid budget growth, rural health transformation fund development, and provider tax/state-directed payment changes. The board approved a motion to change “pilot” to “partnership” in the workforce-related recommendation, and also adopted a technical amendment clarifying overlapping HCBS services by removing reference to adult daycare waiver services and revising the language to focus on reducing duplication, simplifying provider contracting, and standardizing processes across programs. A separate technical correction was noted to change “DMS” to “DPH” in the rural health transformation finding, to be handled in the final edits. Several findings drew discussion but no final substantive vote during the meeting. On the rural health transformation fund, Dr. Berg said Kentucky had done well in federal funding and noted limits on what could be shared publicly, while Commissioner Lee said a public website had been created and recommended the department reference be changed to the Department for Public Health. Finding five prompted extended discussion about provider taxes, state-directed payment reductions under HR 1, and whether the board should address the relationship between actuarial studies, MCO payments, and actual provider reimbursement more directly. Senator Meredith and others argued for a broader, more transparent baseline review of rates across provider groups, while Commissioner Lee said CMS will require certain fee schedule comparisons to Medicare beginning July 1, 2026, and that quarterly expenditure reports already go to LRC. The board did not finish resolving finding five during the meeting and agreed to return to it after staff prepared more explicit language. Members also discussed the possibility of an all-payers claims database as a better way to understand what is being paid across payers and services. No final vote on the full findings package was taken in the portion of the meeting provided, but the board did adopt the noted amendments and continued working through the remaining language.

Transcript Highlights:

• The windfall of the Fla caused by the new rate makes many financial institutions have to participate
• Remittance process, making it easier for everyone including banks. One rate.
• monitor to make sure those rates or comparable in fact, and most importantly, this rate increases civil
• The Fed funds rate was 4.5, the interest rate was 7.5%. The Fed funds rate was 4.5, 9%. Thanks.
• to lending when we tie the rates for the Iowa accounts to lending rates as opposed to savings rates,

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Are the operators going to make the payouts less attractive because they're going to make up for the
• Payouts less attractive because they're going to make up for the loss of, for the higher tax rate, by
• The second point that involves a match rate is under H.R. 1: if you have a high error rate, you have
• error rate between 2025 and 2026.
• Or fiscal '26 error rate.

Bills: HB2053, HB2116, HB2148

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation, A.R.S. 45-119, natural resources, water policy, river management

Transcript Highlights:

• to ICFs that were at the rate floor. to ICFs that were at the rate floor.
• all ICF rates as written. all ICF rates as written.
• system for rate change or rate increase system for rate change or rate increase to<00:31:51.360>
• 2023 was to establish a rate floor. 2023 was to establish a rate floor.
• if that makes sense. if that makes sense.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Choice they make.
• change that rate.
• So both the proposed millage rate and the proposed taxes at that rate, and the rollback rate information
• , adopted rates, and prior year adopted rates.
• The property tax rate, not necessarily the millage rate?

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes met for an educational session focused on how Florida funds public schools and how property taxes are assessed and levied. Dr. Jim Zengali of the Department of Revenue explained the FEFP school funding formula, noting that it is built on weighted student counts, a base student allocation, and programmatic add-ons such as transportation, exceptional student education, school safety, and mental health. He said school funding is roughly split between state general revenue and local property taxes through required local effort, with additional discretionary and capital outlay millages contributing to total school funding. He also described the Department of Revenue’s role in certifying property rolls at fair market value and reviewing them for substantial compliance, including the so-called “nuclear option” if a roll is not approved. Members asked about trends in millage rates, county-by-county funding differences, the effect of growth and enrollment changes, and how property appraisals are reviewed. Zengali said aggregate millage for school funding has declined over the last decade while revenues have still increased, and he agreed to provide additional data on county trends, parcel strata, student growth, and enrollment impacts. He also clarified that school funding is equalized so students receive similar resources regardless of county wealth, and that federal funding plays only a small role in the FEFP. Amy Baker of the Joint Legislative Office of Economic and Demographic Research then discussed existing homestead benefits. She said about half of Florida’s parcels are homestead properties, most fall in the $250,000 to $500,000 value range, and many seniors without mortgages pay property taxes in lump sums rather than through escrow. Baker explained that Florida’s homestead tax burden is middle-of-the-pack nationally and that the main benefits are Save Our Homes and portability on the differential side, plus the $25,000 homestead exemption and related exemptions on the exemption side. She said these benefits reduce taxable value substantially, with homestead properties receiving a large share of the reductions, and noted that the committee requested follow-up data on exemption usage, portability timing, senior exemptions, and county-level patterns. The final presentation, by Lizette Kelly of the Department of Revenue, covered millage rates and the TRIM process. She reviewed the history of truth-in-millage notices, required taxpayer mailings, public hearing notices, and later changes that tied local millage resets to rollback and majority-vote rates. Kelly explained the difference between proposed and adopted millage, the rollback rate, and the majority-vote rate, and described how taxing authorities include counties, cities, special districts, and MSTUs. She also outlined how county taxable value is calculated from just value through assessment differentials and exemptions, and how certain exemptions, such as the additional senior exemption, apply only to the taxing authority that adopted them. No votes were taken during the meeting, but members requested several follow-up data reports for later discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• However, there is a rating component in the current quality rating and improvement system.
• We are asking for three things: rate reform. We need our current rates to be current.
• We are making our budget for next year, and without having a new rate structure based on the cost of
• the changes we need to make for rate reform.
• So we are making great strides in regards to making sure that we're meeting families' needs and making

Summary: The joint hearing focused on California’s child care, preschool, and transitional kindergarten oversight, with chairs emphasizing the state’s Master Plan for Early Learning and Care and the need to break down silos between programs. CDSS and CDE reported progress toward the plan’s goals, including universal access to TK for all four-year-olds next school year, expanded access for low-income three-year-olds, and more children with disabilities being served in state preschool. They also noted ongoing work on quality rating/review reform, funding structure changes, and the need to address rates, workforce shortages, and federal uncertainty around Head Start. Testimony from advocacy groups and providers largely supported expanding access while simplifying the system. Children Now, Every Child California, and the California Budget and Policy Center argued that California still has uneven access, especially for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds, and urged investments in mixed delivery, inclusion, full-day options, and a cost-of-care rate methodology. Every Child California recommended consolidating part-day and full-day contracts, streamlining eligibility priorities, making the two-year-old option permanent, and funding staffing incentives. Parent testimony highlighted how child care gaps and county-to-county transfer delays can disrupt work, safety, and children’s stability, and providers described low reimbursement rates, the need for health and retirement benefits, and support for delinking subsidy rates from private pay. The second panel addressed universal transitional kindergarten. The Learning Policy Institute reported rapid TK expansion, with most districts now offering TK, but said access still depends on facilities, staffing, and whether programs are available at all school sites. The Department of Finance said the governor’s budget would fully implement TK by adding funding for all eligible four-year-olds and lowering the adult-to-child ratio from 12:1 to 10:1. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the administration’s enrollment and cost assumptions were optimistic and estimated lower TK enrollment growth and lower costs for the ratio change. CDE supported the expansion and urged continued funding for UPK coordinators, teacher development, and mixed-delivery planning grants. Members questioned facilities shortages, staffing competition, and how to ensure TK expansion does not displace CSPP or Head Start classrooms. No formal votes or actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• It says adopted rates, but I just want to point out that those rates were actually enacted through legislation
• Impact projected contribution rates.
• Total employer rate.
• contribution rates from adopting the recommendation. ...and employer contribution rates from adopting
• rates.

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.