Transcript Highlights:

• If you ask any actuary, there's a paper from the Society of Actuaries that says 100% is the goal, 100%
• So Tier 2's population requires a $13 million pre-funding but has a true valuation of actuarial impact
• of about... ...million dollar pre-funding but has a true valuation of actuarial impact of about $64
• I think that is why I was asked to run the second valuation, to allow for payment over time.
• to as the true valuation cost is different than that.

Bills: SB1046 , SB1317 , SB1376 , SB1416 , SB1448 , SB1471 , SB1493 , SB1498 , SB1502 , SB1504 , SB1538 , SB1544 , SB1550 , SB1579 , SB1581 , SB1584 , SB1624 , SB1673

Committees: Senate Public Safety , Senate Senate Public Safety Committee of Reference

Keywords: telecommunications, broadband, internet infrastructure, critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, national security, foreign adversary, China, Chinese equipment, supply chain security, network equipment, microchips, Arizona Corporation Commission, telecommunications provider, communications infrastructure, Huawei, ZTE, state-owned enterprise, sanctions, infrastructure security

Transcript Highlights:

• and today we will be Michael Harbour, an actuary with OSA.
• And this calculation is to be based on an actuarial valuation projected to June 30, 2029.
• And again, this state actuary would continue to serve as a plan actuary for the restated Left 1.
• Again, for the record, my name is Michael Harbour, actuary for OSA.
• mention the fact that pension actuaries and health care actuaries use very different assumptions and

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Page 26: every two years, NHRS has our actuary do a detailed actuarial valuation, and they calculate
• Page 26: every two years, NHRS has our actuary do a detailed actuarial valuation, and they calculate
• </c> actuary do a detailed Actuarial actuary do a detailed Actuarial valuation<04:01:10.920><c> and</
• This is looked at every year briefly when the actuary does the valuation and is given a very thorough
• when the actuary does the valuation<04:30:13.479><c> and</c><04:30:13.600><c> is</c><04:30:14.040><c

Summary: The committee held an orientation for new and returning members of the House committee on agencies and administration, with introductions from members and staff. Chair Carol Maguire outlined her expectations for hearings: keep questions focused on the bill, be respectful to witnesses, and use the committee’s orientation opportunities to learn about the jail staff, retirement system, and Office of Professional Licensure. Members also discussed related assignments on other bodies, including the Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules and the Joint Committee on Employee Classification, and noted that some members already serve on those panels. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the State Building Code and the committee’s upcoming workload. Members explained how the state code is intended to provide a common baseline while allowing limited local options, and why municipalities must formally adopt and publish any local amendments. They reviewed several anticipated bills: a consolidation bill to gather building-code enforcement materials in one place, a bill to update the state energy code, a bill to restrict municipal adoption of building-code changes, and a bill to update the electrical code. Members also discussed how building codes apply to older homes and commercial buildings, and why code updates are important for safety and clarity. The chair said the committee had 36 bills currently scheduled, including many early bills that must move by March 6 because they will be heard by two committees. She said the committee would use subcommittees for harder bills, with three subcommittees this year: pensions, licensing, and likely state building code. She also outlined the hearing schedule, including lighter bills on February 12 and the expectation of executive sessions later in the month. No votes were taken during the orientation, but members were told that public hearings do not require a quorum and that hard copies of bills would be distributed by committee staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• It tends to be our busiest time of year, so we prepare our annual actuarial valuation reports.
• We prepare our annual actuarial valuation reports. We're in the midst of doing that.
• All that is to say the actuarial team is kind of at capacity right now.
• And that is the actuarial study—the left one study plan in the House. A lot of us didn't...
• With the actuarial study of the left one study plan. Mr.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Summary: The committee approved the May minutes by roll call vote and then received brief updates from the Attorney General’s office and the Office of the State Actuary. The AG’s office said it would handle legal analysis related to the committee’s work, while the actuary reported that staff were at capacity this summer due to annual valuation work, experience studies, and other retirement system projects, but would have more capacity in the fall. Members also requested access to fiscal note and actuarial materials related to the LEOFF 1 study and related legislation. The main discussion focused on the LEOFF 1 study, including actuarial funding, a proposed merger/termination/restatement approach, and the possibility of a permanent COLA for Plan 1 members. Several members supported keeping COLA recommendations in the committee’s work, while others raised concerns about whether merging or restating plans could affect benefits, legal status, or IRS tax treatment. The actuary explained that the temporary pause in certain funding rates reflected prior overfunding buffers and assumptions about future investment returns, and said future base-rate funding could still be needed depending on experience. Members also discussed constituent correspondence, which staff said largely fell into four categories: the LEOFF 1 study, Plan 1 benefits and COLAs, fossil fuel divestment, and ESSB 5357. The committee agreed that divestment concerns are more appropriately directed to the State Investment Board, not this committee. In reviewing the draft interim work plan, members added or adjusted several topics for future meetings, including a July educational briefing on LEOFF 1 history and tax/IRS issues, a September discussion of COLAs, and a December placeholder for excess compensation/pension spiking, pending coordination with the LEOFF 2 Board. The committee then approved the July agenda and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We'll now go to our actuarial update from Michael Harbor. Thank you, Mr.
• Again, for the record, Michael Harbor, actuary for OSA.
• So last month during the presentation on the updated actuarial valuation results, there was some discussion
• So I think the question then is, Ken, is the actuary office prepared?
• Ken, is the actuary office prepared to move forward with the bill next session?

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• plan actuaries in their annual actuarial valuations.
• Thank you, Miss Wilson. actuarial valuations. The use of the actuarial valuations.
• </c> recommended by the plan actuary. recommended by the plan actuary.
• Oh, for the record, Mark Schulty, actuary for the LCPR via Actuarial Solutions.
• via Actuarial Solutions.

Bills: HB3783 , HB2955 , HB3802 , HB4488 , HB2471 , HB3781 , HB3127

Committee: House Commerce & Economic Development Oversight

Keywords: HB3783, plumbing apprentice, endorsed apprentice, endorsed plumbing apprentice, journeyman plumber, plumbing license, Construction Industries Board, Committee of Plumbing Examiners, apprenticeship, trade license, vocational education, occupational licensing, professional licensing, Title 59, Plumbing License Law of 1955, licensure exam, journeyman examination, apprentice registration, plumbing industry regulations, administrative penalty

Transcript Highlights:

• Senate Bill number 2018 on page 18, line 3, by deleting after the letter 'n' and before the word 'valuation

Bills: SB1327 , SB1372 , SB1403 , SB1937 , SB277 , SB2131 , SB1749 , SB1348 , SB1469 , SB2018 , SB1931 , SB1530 , SB2155

Committee: Senate Economic Development, Workforce and Tourism

Keywords: tourism, recreation, economic development, Oklahoma Commission, executive director, probation, credits, educational advancement, Oklahoma Statutes, criminal justice reform, job incentives, tax rebates, Oklahoma Quality Jobs Program, employment growth, wage requirements, labor organization, incentives, employer practices, union neutrality, worker rights

Transcript Highlights:

• in-house and it'll move forward to our Board of Appeals, and the Board of Appeals simply approves the valuation
• ... ...to our Board of Appeals, and the Board of Appeals simply approves the valuation of the land, nothing
• the State Land Department has not done that in the past or what have you, but as far as mineral valuation
• know the state land department has not done that in the past or what have you but as far as mineral valuation

Bills: HB2150 , HB2262 , HB2267 , HB2268 , HB2351 , HB2425 , HB2426 , HB2427 , HB2755 , HB2781 , HB2913 , HB2943 , HB2956 , HB2975 , HB2985 , HB4009

Committees: House Natural Resources, Energy & Water , House House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee of Reference

Keywords: state land department, mineral lease, renewals, indexed royalties, land use planning, auditor general, five-year plans, geospatial data, Arizona Geological Survey, resource analysis, geographic information systems, wildlife protection, public nuisance, renewable energy, wind farm, solar farm, residential property, public health, local regulations, state land

Bills: SB100 , SB122 , SB127 , HB182 , HB275 , SB100 , SB122 , SB127 , HB182 , HB275

Committee: House Boards, Agencies and Commissions

Keywords: property tax, ad valorem tax, real property assessment, assessment cap, county-wide reappraisal, CPI-U, Consumer Price Index, tax assessor, Class II property, Class III property, local government revenue, property tax relief, reappraisal, tax increment district, retroactive tax law, Alabama Code 40-7-2.2, appropriation, education funding, Southern Preparatory Academy, fiscal responsibility

Transcript Highlights:

• The speaker said the estimate is based on what actuaries do and that they are not an actuary.
• </c><00:13:55.320><c> predicted</c><00:13:56.120><c> 100%</c> about actuarially predicted 100% about
• actuarially predicted 100% funding<00:13:58.560><c> ke</c><00:13:59.440><c> exactly</c><00:13:59.839>
• The response was that the valuation of the company ultimately affects the valuation of the pensions,
• The response was that the valuation of the company ultimately affects the valuation of the pensions.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from its January 27 meeting and then took up House Bill 694, which would create a default rule for the Teachers’ Retirement System health insurance trust fund once it reaches 100% funding, currently anticipated around 2027. The bill would redirect two funding streams now going to the health trust—state payments on behalf of local districts and other employer contributions—into TRS pension benefits if the health fund reaches and maintains full funding. The sponsor said this would add about $154 million annually to TRS pensions and would only serve as a default if no other plan is adopted later. Members asked whether the bill would shift the unfunded liability to teachers or affect employee contributions. The sponsor and staff said it would not shift liability to teachers and would not change the employee contribution; only the employer-side payments would be redirected. Several members asked about the meaning of actuarial 100% funding, whether the fund could fall back below 100%, and whether employee contributions might be reduced in the future. The sponsor said the bill is based on actuarial projections, would revert the money back to the health trust if funding fell below 100%, and does not prevent future legislative or board action. Senator Higdon and others spoke in support of discussing the issue, noting the 2010 shared-responsibility changes and the need for a default approach as full funding is reached. The committee then heard Senate Bill 183, which would amend Kentucky law governing proxy advisers used by retirement systems. The sponsor said the bill would require proxy advisers, when handling shareholder-sponsored proposals, to act solely in the interest of retirement system members and beneficiaries and to provide an economic analysis when voting against a company board’s recommendation. He argued the measure is aimed at proxy advisers such as ISS and Glass Lewis, which he said often advance ESG-related proposals not tied to shareholder value. A guest from APCIA said the bill is meant to distinguish proxy advisers from investment managers and to strengthen the 2023 law by requiring a clearer economic justification for votes that depart from board recommendations. Members asked how proxy advisers differ from other financial advisers, whether Kentucky uses them, and whether the bill would prevent pension funds from investing in companies with ESG factors if those investments are profitable. The sponsor and guest said the bill would not bar such investments; it is intended to regulate proxy voting recommendations, not investment decisions. They described the bill as a proactive measure to reinforce fiduciary responsibility and limit outside proxy influence on pension voting. No final vote on either bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It has no actuarial effect on the state because it comes out of the individual's pockets.
• We're deciding if it's an actuarial... ...of it, but that's not what we're deciding.
• We share it with both the actuarial consultant as well as our IRS tax compliance consultant.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• Seems like this sort of change will have an actuarial impact.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• The restated plan retains enough assets to cover 110% of the actuarial liabilities of the plan, and the
• That's usually also the point where you would foresee the actuarial analysis.
• As you've heard before, OSA, the Office of the State Actuary, our staff provides—we wear multiple hats
• At every one of these meetings, we plan to have at least one actuary with us to help consult on the cost
• So our two actuaries that are present today, we have Michael Harbor, who's here in person.

Committee: Joint Select Committee on Pension Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• As of June 30, 2025, which is the most recent actuarial valuation we've completed for the plan, this
• valuation be conducted of the plan annually.
• In other words, if the most recent actuarial valuation, which we do each October for all of our plans
• We have never run an actuarial impact analysis.
• But that is dependent on whether or not the fund is actuarially sound.

Summary: The committee was called to order, a quorum was established, and the minutes from the prior meeting were approved. The first major presentation came from Montana Public Employees Retirement System executive director William Hollahan, who gave an overview of Montana’s Volunteer Firefighters’ Compensation Act plan. He explained that the plan covers volunteer firefighters in unincorporated areas, is funded by 5% of state fire insurance premium taxes, and currently serves 228 departments with about 2,936 active members and 1,242 retirees. He described eligibility rules, annual training and reporting requirements, benefit levels for partial and full pensions, disability, death, medical, and funeral benefits, and said the plan is actuarially sound with roughly $60 million in assets and a funded ratio slightly above 100%. Committee members asked about prior-service credit, whether EMS personnel are included, the effect on recruitment and retention, and whether expanding coverage would require a funding analysis; Hollahan said prior service is not credited, EMS is not currently included, and any expansion would need financial review. Tim Walleen of Workforce Safety and Insurance then presented a draft North Dakota workers’ compensation solution for volunteer firefighters and volunteer EMS personnel. He explained that volunteer responders are already covered by workers’ comp for medical and wage-loss benefits, but the proposal would set a minimum annual wage of $30,000 for calculating wage-loss benefits for qualifying volunteers, with the benefit paid at two-thirds of that amount. Representative Porter suggested tying the volunteer definition to existing code rather than a fixed dollar amount, and Walleen agreed. Questions focused on whether search and rescue or other volunteer emergency services could be included, whether departments would face new paperwork, and whether volunteer organizations can already elect coverage; Walleen said there would be no additional paperwork and that volunteer coverage is already available. The committee also heard from volunteer fire service representatives and the state fire marshal. An Oakes-area firefighter, Mr. Olson, testified that small departments are struggling with retention, communication, and administrative burdens, especially around separate bookkeeping and funding rules for donated or fundraising money, and he said departments need clearer guidance from the state. State Fire Marshal Dr. Matthew Clark introduced himself and outlined a broader effort to improve education, support, and coordination for fire departments, including a planned 10% audit of certificates of existence beginning in 2027, more outreach through his office, and better assistance with training, reporting, and grant access. He said his office is authorized under current law to provide these services, but the role has been vague and underused. Finally, Arnagard Rural Fire District Chief Rick Schreiber testified in favor of new recruitment and retention ideas, including retirement-style benefits, health insurance, tax incentives, scholarships, grants, and more remote or regional training. He said volunteer departments are losing members, that local tax and donation funds are already stretched, and that any new retirement or incentive program should be sustainable and likely involve a mix of state and local support.

Transcript Highlights:

• from our actuaries for HB 2 is actually the valuation they did earlier this year for HB 727.
• uh</c> updated valuation from the actuary uh updated valuation from the actuary uh this<00:05:56.880
• </c> assumptions uh in the current valuation assumptions uh in the current valuation versus<00:14:19.920
• And our current valuation with the actuary, we told them to assume it was a mistake, and can we notice
• So valuation by our actuary this year was to compare what this bill would do, which would give them the

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 2 retirement provisions, focusing on Group Two/Tier B changes in pages 25-39. Jan Goodwin of the New Hampshire Retirement System and deputy chief counsel Mark Kavanaugh explained that the 2025 bill is largely similar to prior versions, but it restores certain pre-2011 benefit rules for Tier B members, including changes to average final compensation and earnable compensation, and it also addresses the annuity multiplier for years of service. Members discussed the tier structure, with Tier A referring to vested members, Tier B to those hired before 11/1/12 who were not vested, and Tier C to later hires. Several members expressed concern that the bill’s purpose was to restore Tier B benefits, not to change Tier A rules or create broader changes affecting newer hires. The retirement system flagged two likely drafting problems. First, it said a provision appears to omit a special-duty/earnable-compensation limitation in the Group Two section, which they believed was a scrivener’s error caused by moving language out of the Group One definition without adding it back for Group Two. Second, they noted the bill’s multiplier language overlaps with changes already enacted in HB 1647, which increased the multiplier for service beyond 15 years for Group Two and carried an estimated $26 million cost. The committee discussed that HB 1647 was originally broader in the House, but the Senate narrowed it to Tier B only. The actuary’s comparison of the 2023 and 2025 HB 2 versions showed the bills are close, but the 2025 version differs in funding and timing. Staff said the 2025 bill appropriates $2.5 million more per year for 10 years, and that, together with updated actuarial assumptions and a larger share of the affected tier having already retired or otherwise left service, results in a larger reduction in unfunded liability than the 2023 bill: about $98.2 million versus $68.5 million. Employer contribution impacts were described as small overall, though the 2025 bill was said to be somewhat more favorable than the 2023 version. Members also questioned why House Bill 1 only funds $5 million in the first year, and staff said that was tied to the governor’s revenue estimate and that the full funding does not begin immediately. No votes were taken in the portion provided; the committee mainly received testimony, asked clarifying questions, and noted that some issues would be addressed in the fiscal note worksheet.

Transcript Highlights:

• You can see where they fall in terms of their actuarial funding ratio compared to their peers around
• They have been contributing significantly more than is actuarial.
• Um, so it is helpful and we'll have more information once the valuations are finalized.
• I should say, 'actuarially determined.'
• That's the actual term, the actuarially determined contribution.

Committee: House Investments & Pensions Oversight Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• We share it with both the actuarial consultant of this bill.
• We share it with both the actuarial consultant as well as our IRS tax compliance consultant.
• We also did actuarial analysis.
• I think these sorts of retirement bills are ones that very obviously require actuarial analysis.
• Seems like this sort of change will have an actuarial impact.

Committee: Joint Employee Benefits Programs Committee

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

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, this is for the actuarial advantage.
• This is our actuarial provider for the property insurance program.
• have been working and improving... ...valuations, the total insured value of the properties.
• What we were finding when we worked with the actuarial advantage is that there was no actuarial base
• Now you can all take comfort that there is that very transparent, very solid actuarial foundation to

Committee: All ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:47:38.520><c> firm</c><00:47:39.359><c> to</c> Actuarial firm to Actuarial firm to review<00:47:41.240
• </c><00:51:08.839><c> review</c> want to ask the actual Actuarial review want to ask the actual Actuarial
• The witness said the actuarial report can be provided.
• The witness said the actuarial report can be provided.
• The actuarial report is a 60-plus-page report.

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on HB 660, which would require historic horse racing facilities to pay 10% of HHR winnings to host communities as mitigation. Representative Om said the amendment was intended to leave charities and the state whole while funding local costs tied to large gaming facilities. Supporters argued the measure would address future municipal expenses, while opponents said host towns have not reported current problems and that the bill would single out one industry. Members questioned the 10% rate, whether the proposal was retroactive, and whether it would apply to existing facilities; the sponsor said it would apply to facilities already in place or later added. The hearing was then closed without any vote recorded in the transcript. The committee then opened a hearing on HB 658-FN, which raises reimbursement caps and adjusts fees for the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund and the Oil Pollution Control Fund. Representative Malloy introduced the bill, and Representative Aly explained the funds as a state-backed insurance mechanism for oil spill cleanup and prevention, including replacement of leaking home heating oil tanks for low-income homeowners. Bob Scully of the Energy Marketers Association supported the bill, saying the fee structure helps fund remediation and tank replacement, though costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. Department of Environmental Services officials Robert Bishop and Jennifer Marts described the bill as extending the fee collection for 10 years, changing reporting dates, increasing the cap for low-income tank replacement, and rebalancing fees based on an actuarial review. DES testified that the actuarial study found the fund needed to remain solvent and that home heating oil releases are the largest category of new releases, with the fuel oil fee otherwise needing to rise by more than 200% to cover projected costs. The board instead proposed a smaller increase and adjusted other fees accordingly, while maintaining a reserve to cover the first days of a major coastal spill before federal funds become available. Members asked about the basis for the fee changes, the role of the actuarial review, and the statutory language governing who pays the fees. The transcript ends during this hearing, with no final committee action or vote shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, this is for the actuarial advantage.
• This is our actuarial provider for the property insurance program.
• have been working and improving... ...valuations, the total insured value of the properties, we have
• What we were finding when we worked with the actuarial advantage is that there was no actuarial base
• You can all take comfort that there is that very transparent, very solid actuarial foundation to what

Committee: All ALC-STATE INSURANCE PROGRAMS OVERSIGHT SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The State Insurance Programs Oversight Subcommittee met on June 17 and reviewed a series of Employee Benefits Division and Office of Property Risk items. The committee approved formulary changes for March and April that favored lower-cost generics, removed some new-to-market drugs from coverage pending more evidence, and made maintenance changes to migraine and diabetes medications. Members also approved a cell and gene therapy policy that would route those therapies through prior authorization rather than automatic coverage; officials said the process should not delay urgent cases and that no current members would be affected. The committee then reviewed a UAMS pharmacy benefit consultant contract amendment, but after extended discussion about the written scope and dollar amounts, the motion was approved with the understanding that any use of optional services would return to the committee for further review. The committee also reviewed the U.S. Able Mutual/Blue Advantage third-party administration contract and the CompSack employee assistance program contract, which officials said would reduce per-member costs and add services. The subcommittee approved proposed 2027 rates for state employees and public employees, with a 9.8% increase for state employees and a 4.9% increase for public school employees. Officials also reported that the UnitedHealthcare rebid was in its final negotiation stage and would return in August, with medical and pharmacy coverage split as previously recommended. In response to questions, the director said the division was considering broader preventive-care offerings, including weight-loss drug coverage, but would proceed cautiously and with strong utilization controls and holistic support if such a program were adopted. On the property risk side, the committee reviewed permanent rules making prior temporary rules permanent, a contingency-fee subrogation contract, and renewals for claims management, actuarial services, and investment management. Members raised concerns about Sedgwick’s claim-adjustment timeliness and communication with school districts after severe weather events; officials said performance guarantees and communication expectations had been strengthened, but the renewal was kept at three years for continuity. Finally, the committee approved 2026-27 captive insurance program rates, which included no change to minimum deductibles, a 10% overall rate reduction, and bucketed rate changes by entity type. Officials said the captive program was working as intended, with improved actuarial support and claims experience, and the meeting adjourned after the approvals.