Bills: HB2437, HB1815, HB1614, HB1613, HB1612, HB2411, HB2597, HB2583, HB2474, HB1863, HB2590, HB1813, HB1838, HB2138, HB1967, HB1576, HB2139, HB1605, HB2113, HB812, HB1831, HB1707, HB2561, HB1805, HB2469, HB2472, HB2387, HB1658, HB1661, HB1664, HB1859, HB2276, HB2335, HB1656, HB2116, HB2272, HB2273, HB2340, HB2158, HB2339, HB2489, HB2159, HB2171, HB2338, HB2005, HB1952, HB1872, HB1676, HB2384, HB2614, HB20, HB1776, HB1565, HB2310, HB1975, HB1801, HB1668, HB2114, HB1972, HB1546, HB1518, HB1131, HB2208, HB2156, HB2268, HB2622, HB2581, HB2498, HB2443, HB1577, HB2033, HB2031, HB2023, HB1969, HB1973, HB1974, HB2315, HB2343, HB2501, HB2505, HB816, HB1562, HB1591, HB1853, HB1854, HB1871, HB1965, HB1966, HB1537, HB1541, HB276, HB2606, HB2270, HB1920, HB1756, HB1727, HB1718, HB1715, HB1713, HB1711

Keywords: arts education, student engagement, cultural literacy, public schools, funding, State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, SFCA, Performing Arts Grants Program, arts grants, culture and the arts, history and the humanities, King Kamehameha Celebration Commission, Works of Art Special Fund, one percent for art, public art, art in public places, relocatable works of art, DBEDT, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, DAGS

Transcript Highlights:

• But what he did do was he reduced the monetary penalty, knowing that now he's relying upon basically
• What this bill asks us to decide is whether there is a point where our need for contribution as a society
• What this bill asks us to decide is whether there is a point where our need for contribution as a society
• What this bill asks us to decide is whether there is a point where our need for contribution as a society
• What this bill asks us to decide is whether there is a point where our need for contribution as a society

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Defined contribution benefit.
• Contributions into the assumed income match their actual defined contribution account, but there is an
• Contributions into the assumed income match their actual defined contribution account, but there is an
• reassess certain key assumptions related to contribution rates.
• Funding decreases in contribution rates for most plans.

Summary: The Pension Funding Council met on June 23, 2026, for a work session that began with an overview of the Higher Education Supplemental Retirement Plan (SRP) and a 2025 accounting valuation of that plan. Staff explained that the SRP is a closed defined benefit supplement for higher education employees hired before the 2011 closure, with employer contributions currently pre-funding benefits in institution-specific trusts while institutions still pay benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis. The State Actuary’s office reported that the plan’s accounting position has improved, with combined market assets of about $245 million against $377 million in accrued liability, and that strong market performance since 2022 has increased the asset-to-liability ratio. The office emphasized that this was an educational accounting valuation, not a funding valuation for rate-setting. The council then received the 2025 actuarial valuation report for the state retirement systems. Actuaries reviewed the recent demographic experience study, noting updated assumptions for mortality, retirement, termination, and salary growth, and said the net impact on most plans was small. They reported that most plans’ funded ratios improved, with all plans at least 94% funded and several at or above 100%, and that contribution rates for the 2027–2029 biennium are generally lower than current rates. They also noted that future rates could be affected by market volatility as deferred gains are recognized over the next few years. During public comment, a representative of the Association of Washington Cities urged the council to consider rate reductions to help local governments facing budget pressures. In executive session, the council first approved a motion directing the Office of the State Actuary to perform an actuarial evaluation and analysis of each institution’s Higher Education Supplemental Retirement Plan, including institution-specific contribution rates, asset sufficiency, and funding policy options, due by July 1, 2028. The council then adopted the 2027–2029 pension contribution rates based on the 2025 actuarial valuation report. Both motions passed 5-0, with one member excused. The meeting concluded with no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a contribution ratio.
• They've made good contributions.
• employer contribution of 7 and a half%. employer contribution of 7 and a half%.
• That contribution stops in 2031. That contribution stops in 2031.
• our employee and employer contributions. our employee and employer contributions.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Defined contribution benefit.
• Contributions into the assumed income match their actual defined contribution account, but there is an
• that some assumptions increased contribution rates...
• That's the measurement date used to calculate those contribution rates.
• Thank you. ...decreases in contribution rates for most plans.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Employees are contributing 15% to pay; the state is contributing 23.1%, and there's a supplemental contribution
• All employers contribute the same contribution rate regardless of the makeup of their employees.
• All employers contribute the same contribution rate regardless of the makeup of their employees.
• contribution that goes away.
• <01:09:06.520> supplemental uh contributions supplemental uh contributions supplemental contributions

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:05:14.440> Some contribution. That is a key thing. Some contribution.
• insurance<00:18:20.240> contributions, the health insurance contributions, the health insurance
• And you can see that the contributions And you can see that the contributions were<00:19:50.560>
• the contributions on. the contributions on.
• Retirees, they were not contributing to a second account because they're— >> So this is just contributing

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:54 Pension System Update 00:03:38, 958, all

Summary: The committee held its first official interim meeting after merging the General Government and Finance, Personnel, and Public Retirement committees, establishing a quorum and opening with the pledge and prayer. Members then received a briefing from KPPA representatives Ryan Barrow and Aaron Sarock on the state retirement systems, including KERS, CERS, and SPRS, and on the importance of fully funding the actuarially determined employer contribution, supplemental appropriations, and investment earnings in reducing unfunded liabilities. They said the systems have made progress toward a statutory closed amortization target of 2049 and emphasized that supplemental funding lowers current employer contribution rates but does not change that end date. A major topic was federal and state reemployment-after-retirement rules for retirees who return to work with participating employers. KPPA explained that retirees must have a bona fide separation from service, no prearranged agreement to return, and generally a one-calendar-month break in service for retirees on or after January 1, 2024. If a member fails to comply, retirement benefits can be voided, payments stopped, health coverage ended, and benefits repaid. The presenters also noted that rehired retirees do not earn a second retirement account, and employers rehiring them must pay employer contributions and, in non-exempt cases, reimburse health insurance costs. Members asked about the scale of rehired retirees and the difference between employer contribution and health insurance reimbursement amounts. KPPA said that in fiscal year 2025 there were over 3,500 rehired retirees in CERS and over 5,000 in SPRS, with substantial employer contributions and health reimbursement payments collected. They also explained that some positions are exempt from these chargebacks, including school resource officers and certain law enforcement positions that meet statutory criteria. The committee discussed House Bill 213, which allows cities, sheriffs’ departments, and post-secondary institutions to offer health insurance to rehired officers if authorized by the governing body, effective August 1, 2026, and clarifies the fiscal-year basis for certain exemption limits. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• contribution in two legislative campaign contribution in two places.<00:02:44.000> That's<00:
• There are two sections to contributions.
• or accept a legislative contribution or accept a legislative campaign<00:04:20.400> contribution<
• affirmative act a campaign contribution affirmative act a campaign contribution within<00:04:53.919
• contribution. So that's the delineation. contribution. So that's the delineation.

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Senate Rules Committee met on February 13 to continue work on proposed Senate Rule 15-9, a rule prohibiting campaign contributions. Members discussed two parts of the rule: one barring any solicitation, offer, delivery, or acceptance of campaign contributions in areas under the control of the President of the Senate at any time, and another barring senators from knowingly soliciting or accepting contributions by affirmative act during regular or special session. Senator Rothfuss suggested clarifying the session-related language by adding the word “legislative” before “campaign” in paragraph B, while leaving paragraph A broad. The chair explained the distinction between the two provisions and opened the meeting for public comment, but none was offered. Senator Rothfuss moved to adopt the rule and offered the amendment; Senator Guru seconded it. The amendment passed unanimously, and the committee then voted to adopt the rule as amended, with Senators Guru and Rothfuss voting aye and the chair announcing the vote passed before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• 2025, which projects the contribution rate beginning July 1, 2026.
• So the contribution rate is reducing by 2.46%. The dollar amount...
• We were changing the aggregate contribution rate to 30.05%, with a required projected employer contribution
• So the 30.05% is an aggregate contribution rate.
• And you can see the 565, they are. the contribution rate.

Summary: The Public Retirement Systems Actuarial Committee met on June 22 and approved the minutes from the February 23, 2026 meeting. There was no public comment. The main discussion focused on Louisiana State Employees’ Retirement System (LASERS) and how appropriations from House Bill 312 of 2026 affect the system’s actuarial valuation and employer contribution rate for fiscal year 2027. Staff explained that HB 312 provided about $145 million in appropriations to LASERS, with roughly $87.6 million applied to the original amortization base and about $57.9 million applied to the experience account amortization base. As a result, the projected aggregate employer contribution rate for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2026 was revised from 32.51% to 30.05%, a reduction of 2.46%, and the required projected employer contribution was updated to about $738.7 million. The presentation also noted that the June 30, 2025 valuation itself did not change, only the projected 2026 rate, and that the original amortization base would be paid off by June 30, 2026. Committee members asked about the longer-term effect of the changes, including a projected 2036 payment reduction. Staff explained that later-year UAL payments would be lower, but that the exact savings would depend on future actuarial experience and investment performance. The committee then adopted the motion to revise the projected fiscal year 2027 LASERS aggregate contribution rate to 30.05%, subject to the appropriation, and later adjourned without opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• So contribution rates naturally... ...funding.
• I know it contributes to the Plan 2 and 3.
• contributions, The employee contribution rate, interest on employee contributions, withdrawal of contributions
• So next up is the employee contribution rate.
• more or contribute less.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• receive a random campaign contribution receive a random campaign contribution at<00:17:34.400>
• session solicit or accept a contribution session solicit or accept a contribution or<00:21:30.720
• c> contribution<00:26:16.720> by accept a campaign contribution by accept a campaign contribution
• c> contribution<00:26:40.960> by accept a campaign contribution by accept a campaign contribution
• c> contribution<00:26:56.159> by accept a campaign contribution by accept a campaign contribution

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Rules Committee met to consider a proposed Senate Rule 15-9 prohibiting campaign contributions in Senate-controlled areas of the Capitol, prompted by concerns about lobbyists and others distributing checks to legislators while legislation is pending. The chair read a leadership statement condemning campaign contributions during session when donors’ interests are under consideration, saying such conduct creates at least the appearance of impropriety and undermines public trust. The initial draft would bar soliciting, offering, delivering, accepting, or receiving campaign contributions in Senate-controlled spaces such as the chamber, gallery, floor, corridors, lounge, lobby areas, and committee rooms. Senator Barlo raised concerns about defining the Senate’s authority and the scope of the prohibited areas, asking whether the rule would apply year-round, during interim meetings, or to online donations received while in the building. Other members responded that the Senate could only regulate areas under its control and that the rule should focus on the Capitol building itself, where fundraising should not occur. The chair noted that many other states have similar restrictions, and members discussed whether the rule should also cover campaign contributions during legislative session, not just inside the building. Senators Guru, Rothfus, and Biteman generally supported a stronger rule aimed at preventing vote buying and preserving the integrity of the institution, while acknowledging the need to refine language for enforcement and scope. The committee reviewed examples from Alaska and Wyoming’s constitutional bribery language, and staff and members proposed revised wording that would prohibit any person from knowingly soliciting, offering, delivering, accepting, or receiving campaign contributions in the state capital complex at any time, and separately prohibit senators from knowingly soliciting or knowingly accepting contributions by affirmative act during regular or special session. The discussion ended with no final vote taken, and members indicated they would continue working on the language with staff.

Transcript Highlights:

• The current parental contribution.
• contribution for the upcoming aid year. contribution for the upcoming aid year.
• It's not student and contribution. It's not student and parental<00:15:51.360> contribution.
• or student contribution to a limit that is equal to the lowest student contribution.
• to contribution or student contribution to contribution or student contribution to a<00:17:28.799

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• nor to receive the contribution other than to discover that the contribution was made. regular or special
• nor to receive the contribution other than to discover that the contribution was made.
• that for that campaign contribution. that for that campaign contribution.
• discover or accept a contribution discover or accept a contribution without<00:04:47.520> having
• contribution has been made. contribution has been made. Another<00:05:18.720> cop.

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The Senate rules committee continued work on a proposed rule restricting campaign fundraising in the Capitol and during session or special session. Senator Nethercott and LSO attorney Mr. Shaw explained that the draft was revised to add clarity after concerns that the earlier language could unintentionally penalize a senator who merely received a contribution without affirmatively soliciting it. The committee discussed two options: option one, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting a contribution and accepting it by affirmative act, and option two, which would prohibit knowingly soliciting or accepting a legislative campaign contribution by affirmative act. A new subsection C was also added to make clear the rule would not apply when a senator merely discovers that a contribution was made and took no affirmative act to solicit or receive it. Members focused on how the term “solicit” should be understood, including whether a campaign website donate button or online promotion would count as solicitation. Mr. Shaw said the rule does not define the term and suggested it should be applied reasonably, noting that a static donate button may be treated differently from actively promoting donations. Several senators said subsection C addressed the main concern about accidental receipt of a mailed contribution, but that further guidance may still be needed on passive receipt and how to handle donations connected to pending legislation. Senator Duro said the committee was responding to an unacceptable incident that occurred in the building and wanted to make clear such conduct would not be tolerated. After discussion, Senator Rothfuss moved option two and Senator Gierau seconded. The committee voted to adopt option two, with Senators Gierau, Nethercott, Salazar, and Chairman Biteman voting aye; Senator Rothfuss also voted aye. The committee then adjourned, and it was noted that the adopted rule would become part of the permanent Senate rules unless changed at the start of a future session.

Transcript Highlights:

• the other exis contributions or with the other exis contributions or illegal<00:41:38.000> contributions
• expenditures and political contributions expenditures and political contributions we<00:42:05.720
• um you can see that contributions are um you can see that contributions are not<01:23:19.880> only
• maximum contribution actually just the maximum contribution disguised<01:27:03.239> as<01:27:
• of contribution it makes contributions<01:30:59.119> by<01:30:59.280> the<01:30:59.440

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs held its first hearing of the 33rd Legislature and heard several measures, beginning with HB 131, which would allow agencies to disclose government records to researchers for certain purposes and direct the Office of Information Practices to adopt uniform rules. OIP supported the bill, saying it would help researchers access government records, while DLNR questioned whether the bill was necessary, raised concerns about costs and exemptions, and suggested a definition change regarding media. The Public First Law Center and other supporters said the bill would not remove existing exemptions or create new disclosure requirements, but would simply authorize rulemaking to create a clearer process for research access. Common Cause Hawaiʻi raised concern about including news media in the measure. The chair emphasized that the rulemaking process would allow agencies and the public to work through details, and the committee moved on without a recorded vote in the transcript. The committee then heard HB 411, which would create uniform administrative penalty procedures under the state ethics code and lobbyist law, and HB 412, which would expand lobbying definitions to cover certain communications with high-level executive officials about procurement and make some contracts voidable if awarded through unethical lobbying. The Ethics Commission supported HB 411 as an efficiency measure that would streamline the charge process without changing substantive rights, while HB 412 was described as a narrow transparency measure modeled on other states. The State Procurement Office warned that voiding contracts could cause delays, warranty issues, third-party complications, and higher reprocurement costs. The Ethics Commission responded that any contract revocation would be at the Attorney General’s discretion and likely reserved for egregious cases, and that the threat of voiding a contract would help deter noncompliance. The committee also heard HB 413, which clarifies that lobbyist campaign contribution prohibitions apply during periods when both houses of the Legislature are in session; the Ethics Commission and Campaign Spending Commission both supported the bill and the Ethics Commission requested amendments to clarify jurisdiction between state and county lobbyist enforcement. Finally, the committee took up HB 149, which would require domestic and foreign corporations to report independent expenditures and political contributions to shareholders. The only testimony noted in the transcript was written comments from Matson, which said the requirement would be expensive and cumbersome and that the information is already publicly available through existing campaign finance reporting websites. No votes or final committee actions on the bills were recorded in the provided transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are not contributing, nor is the employer contributing. >> No.
• , nor is the employer contributing. contributing. contributing.
• not be free of totally of contributions, but contribute the normal cost.
• for this new... contributions but contribute the um contributions but contribute the um normal<00:42
• contributions to the system? contributions to the system?

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:17 Approval of Minutes: 00:02:09 Legislative Proposals: HB 213: 00:02:13 HB 516: 00:25:00 HB 589: 00:39:30 Kentucky Public Pension Authority: 00:44:52 Adjournment: 01:14:07, 958, all

Summary: The Public Pension Oversight Board met on February 13 and approved the minutes after establishing a quorum. The committee then took up three pension-related bills, beginning with Rep. Callaway’s proposal to allow certain retired police officers with 15 to 19 years of service to be rehired by local law enforcement agencies. Callaway and Brandon Lincoln of the FOP said the bill is intended to help recruitment and retention, especially for departments facing staffing shortages, and emphasized that it would be optional and would not allow double-dipping. Committee members raised concerns that lowering the service threshold from 20 to 15 years could create an unfunded liability and weaken the pension system, and several members said they did not yet fully understand how the pension and insurance provisions would work. The sponsor said she was open to working on the bill, and the chair noted the committee would continue to examine it with help from KPA staff. The second bill, presented by Rep. Lewis with Brandon Lincoln and Jeff Taylor, addressed probationary employees in CS agencies, including firefighters and police officers. The bill would let certain former probationary employees purchase service credit for time spent in probation, and would extend line-of-duty death and disability protections to employees who are injured or killed during probationary service. Testimony said the measure is optional for employers, could be used as a recruitment tool, and would allow employees within six months of the probationary period to buy back the time themselves if they choose. Members generally supported the concept, noted a negligible fiscal note, and discussed whether current employees could buy back older probationary periods; the sponsor said the bill did not appear to allow that, though he was open to further discussion. Throughout both bills, members focused on whether the proposals would create new pension costs or liabilities and how they would interact with existing retirement tiers and contribution rules. Several members asked for clarification on whether rehired workers would contribute to the pension system, whether employers would pay normal cost or any contribution at all, and whether the bills would affect future retirement benefits. The sponsors and witnesses repeatedly said the measures were limited, optional, and intended to address staffing and fairness issues without changing the core retirement system, but the committee did not take final action on the bills during the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• the actuarial determined contributions. the actuarial determined contributions.
• fully funded plan 0% contributions fully funded plan 0% contributions that<00:11:51.000> that
• assumed that the the full contribution assumed that the the full contribution would<00:24:37.679
• contributions on the employer side. contributions on the employer side.
• No liability there. contributions. And in 2018, it received contributions.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:12 Approval of Minutes: 00:01:34 Actuarial Valuation Update – KPPA: 00:02:10 Actuarial Valuation Update – TRS: 00:25:32, 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with roll call, confirmation of a quorum, and approval of the prior minutes. The main presentation was from KPPA officials Ryan Barrow and Erin Saratt on the annual actuarial valuations for the retirement and insurance systems. They said the systems’ funding status improved overall, with three of five insurance funds fully funded, CERS hazardous dropping from over 100% funded to 90.9% because of premium changes, and KRS receiving $650 million in supplemental funding over the biennium. They also reported strong investment returns above assumed rates, higher payroll and membership counts, and resulting actuarial losses tied to higher salaries and premiums, especially on the insurance side. Members asked several questions about what drove the actuarial losses and whether legislation affected them. KPPA said the CERS insurance loss was driven by premium increases and Senate Bill 10, while the pension-side losses were largely due to higher payroll and benefits for Tier 1 and Tier 2 members. They explained that new Tier 3 employees are designed to add no additional unfunded liability, and that the state administers the systems but does not directly control all hiring. Questions also focused on retiree health premiums, which KPPA said rose about 15% for non-Medicare retirees and 38% for Medicare retirees, with the increase attributed to utilization, prescription costs, and the Inflation Reduction Act. The committee then heard from TRS Deputy Executive Secretary and General Counsel Beau Barnes on the 2025 TRS actuarial valuation. He reported that the Retirement Annuity Trust and Health Insurance Trust both received full funding, the retirement trust’s funded ratio improved to 61%, TRS 4 remains well funded with no liability, and the health insurance trust improved to 89.1%. Barnes said TRS is on track to fully fund legacy liabilities within the amortization period, with 2044 as the point when the system reflects 100% funding and 2046 as the last year needing additional dollars for the legacy liability. He also explained that lower assumed investment returns and updated mortality assumptions increased liabilities, but that TRS uses direct rate smoothing for budgeting purposes. At the end of the meeting, the chair circulated a proposed set of “do’s and don’ts of pensions,” emphasizing that future legislation should not create unfunded liabilities. Barnes also noted he would later discuss several legislative proposals for the 2026 session, but the transcript provided ends before that discussion or any votes on those proposals.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those metrics are contribution rate levels.
• Contribution rates are trending downward.
• Impact projected contribution rates.
• contribution rates from adopting the recommendation. ...and employer contribution rates from adopting
• State contributions were a requirement, not a gift.

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:

• And contributions overall are 4.65%.
• A 30% contribution to that work. We're giving...
• This is the last year phasing those contributions in.
• Contribution increases would be ideal.
• We've been talking about employee contributions and employer contributions to help get us through this

Transcript Highlights:

• I could look at contributions from itemized contributions because itemized contributions have the address
• c> contributions<00:40:26.440> made<00:40:26.720> by applies to contributions made
• , assigned to the contribution.
• <01:05:29.880> he thankful for all contributions he thankful for all contributions he contributes
• contribution contribution refund.<01:15:26.960> revenue.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the contribution rate in a one-year period.
• Moving to the calculation contribution in the June Moving to the calculation contribution in the June
• That is at the contribution rate is the debt payment on the unfunded.
• The initial contribution would have been $364 million.
• It takes a combination of contributions. It takes a contribution of the benefits formula.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement held a hearing focused on the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement System (MOSERS) and its long-term financial condition. MOSERS staff and its investment consultant reviewed the system’s structure, membership, funding policy, and investment approach. They reported a June 30, 2025 funded ratio of 55.4%, with about $17.4 billion in liabilities and $9.6 billion in assets, and explained that the board certified a 32% employer contribution rate under its minimum contribution policy, up from 30.25%, which will increase state appropriations. They also described the system as mature, with more retirees and inactive members than active employees, and said declining payroll growth has made it harder to improve funding. The presentation emphasized that recent board actions were intended to strengthen the plan over the long term, even though they increased near-term costs. Those changes included lowering the assumed investment return over time to 6.95%, updating mortality assumptions, moving from an open to a closed amortization schedule, and adopting a minimum employer contribution policy. The investment consultant said MOSERS historically used a more risk-balanced asset allocation than many peers, which helped explain weaker relative returns during a long period when public equities outperformed; the board has since shifted toward a more equity-oriented allocation. He said recent performance has improved, with the portfolio outperforming its policy index and ranking better against peers in the short term, though longer-term peer performance remains a concern. Committee members questioned why the funded ratio had declined over roughly 20 years and whether past investment and actuarial assumptions were too optimistic or too conservative. MOSERS officials responded that the current board is trying to correct earlier decisions and that the present strategy is more in line with industry practice. Members also discussed a proposed MOSERS bill package that would automatically refund small balances to terminated non-vested members and increase deferred compensation auto-escalation, with officials saying the refund provision would improve efficiency and return small balances sooner. The committee also briefly discussed ongoing litigation involving Catalyst Capital; MOSERS said attorney fees have been about $20 million so far, the case remains on appeal, and the damages amount is sealed. No formal votes were taken, and the committee adjourned after questions and discussion.