Transcript Highlights:

• The question is for the amendment sponsor: What actuarial services did you contact?
• We are neutral on the bill, but I'm here to answer all of the actuarial data information.
• PSPRS did run the actuaries ...they anticipate paying it off over around 25 years.
• PSPRS did run the actuaries PSPRS did run the actuaries with our actuarial firm.
• Well, that's just actuarial. What's the legal standpoint?

Bills: SB1041, SB1050, SB1131, SB1138, SB1249, SB1267, SB1272, SB1317, SB1461, SB1488, SB1504, SB1517, SB1523, SB1580, SB1582, SB1584, SB1585, SB1602, SB1630, SB1654, SB1672, SB1673, SB1718, SB1761, SB1819, SB1826, SB1827

Keywords: electronic monitoring, nursing care, assisted living, resident rights, privacy, consent, surveillance, veterans, lifetime pass, state parks, Arizona, access, disabled veterans, cardiac arrest, defibrillators, school safety, emergency response, CPR training, Arizona education funding, automated license plate readers

Summary: The committee first considered Senate Bill 1630, which would direct AHCCCS to seek federal approval for a home- and community-based services program for adults determined to be seriously mentally ill, with quarterly implementation updates, stakeholder input, and a cap on enrollment. The sponsor and advocates from Arizona Mad Moms argued the bill would create an assisted-living-style Medicaid option for the most disabled SMI individuals, improve continuity of care, and reduce state general fund costs by shifting some expenses to federal Medicaid funding. Access testified neutral, estimating a total fiscal impact of $27.7 million, including $5.83 million general fund, and explained the need for CMS approval. The committee adopted an amendment reducing the initial cap to 250 members, changing reporting frequency, and adjusting eligibility and expansion conditions, then passed SB 1630 as amended on a 10-0 vote. The committee next heard Senate Bill 1131, which originally required school districts and charter schools to adopt cardiac emergency response plans and appropriated $1 million for implementation. An amendment replaced the mandate with a reporting requirement on AED counts, CPR/AED-trained staff, and whether schools have a plan, while keeping a grant component for AEDs and prioritizing rural schools. The American Heart Association supported the amended approach as a way to gather baseline data and target resources, and members discussed AED training, school preparedness, and whether the funding should favor rural or high-population schools. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1131 as amended on a 9-1 vote, with Senator Kuby voting no and several members explaining concerns about funding and priorities. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1582, which concerned the school safety interoperability fund. An amendment shifted the appropriation from the Department of Education to the Department of Administration and allocated funds to specific county sheriff offices for continuing operation and maintenance of existing interoperability systems, while narrowing the program to public safety agencies and school districts and requiring twice-yearly testing. Sheriffs, a county school superintendent, and the Arizona Sheriffs Association described the systems as useful for drills and real emergencies, improving communication between schools and first responders; one speaker noted the program had been used in drills and at least one live deployment. Some members questioned the audit findings, the focus on rural counties, and whether the program was a good use of funds, while supporters emphasized its value for school safety. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1582 as amended on a 6-4 vote. Finally, the committee began hearing Senate Bill 1504, which would change retirement rules for Tier 2 and Tier 3 public safety personnel by allowing earlier normal retirement and shortening the COLA waiting period, with an amendment exempting the changes from the statutory pre-funding requirement. Supporters from firefighter and police groups said the bill would improve recruitment and retention and let employees receive earned benefits sooner, while city, county, and taxpayer representatives warned it would add substantial unfunded liabilities and undermine the 2016 pension reforms. Actuarial testimony estimated significant costs, including tens of millions in annual or upfront impacts depending on how the change is funded, and members debated whether the amendment would shift costs onto future taxpayers or simply spread them over time. The transcript ends during continued testimony and discussion on SB 1504, before a final vote is reached.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm a principal and consulting actuary with Milliman in San Francisco.
• I'm a principal and consulting actuary with Milliman in San Francisco.
• I've spent 40-plus years as an actuary pricing insurance and reinsurance.
• It might be helpful, but there's no actuarial or scientific studies that we can point to.
• I brought up the last panel, a previous panel, with the Milliman Actuary.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Committee on Insurance held an informational hearing on how climate change, wildfire risk, and related catastrophes are affecting California’s insurance market, affordability, and availability. Chair and members framed the issue as a statewide challenge tied to resiliency, land use, utilities, legal liability, and the FAIR Plan. Senator Becker noted the hearing was connected to SB 254 and its recent report, while the Vice Chair emphasized that the state’s current regulatory framework limits flexibility and that industry testimony would also have been useful. Amy Bach of United Policyholders described worsening availability and affordability, driven by climate impacts, insurtech/risk scoring, inflation, and the growth of surplus lines coverage. She said the Sustainable Insurance Strategy is beginning to show progress, but the FAIR Plan remains too large and non-admitted carriers create concerns because they are less regulated and do not share FAIR Plan or guaranty fund obligations. She stressed that mitigation incentives, grants, and voluntary insurer rewards for wildfire-hardening are important, but that many households cannot afford the needed improvements. In response to questions, she said underinsurance remains a major problem, especially after recent fires, and suggested stronger insurer responsibility for replacement-cost estimates or broader replacement-cost endorsements. Actuary Nancy Watkins and Stanford’s Michael Wara argued that California must both reduce wildfire risk and allow actuarially sound pricing if it wants a healthier market. Watkins compared the market to a household with rising expenses and said the state needs a mitigation framework focused on the highest-risk communities, especially older neighborhoods and homes near the wildland-urban interface. Wara said premiums must roughly equal expected claims plus expenses, and that California is “burning down too many houses,” which drives both availability problems and higher rates. He highlighted the role of structure-to-structure spread, older housing stock, utility ignitions, and the need to focus on community hardening, not just vegetation management. Both speakers said mitigation should be targeted, science-based, and sustained rather than one-time or scattered. Frank Freebalt of Cal Poly and Michael Gullner of UC Berkeley continued the discussion on fire modeling and risk reduction. Freebalt said the problem is best understood as a structure ignition and urban conflagration problem, requiring integrated land-use, utility, and community mitigation, with evidence-based priorities and better analytics. He emphasized that the state should focus on the highest-risk intersections first and that targeted mitigation can multiply the effectiveness of suppression and evacuation resources. No votes or formal actions were taken; the hearing was informational and focused on testimony, questions, and policy discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill says that the school district can pay the actuarial cost of those days.
• This bill says that the school district can pay the actuarial cost of those days.
• This bill says that the school district can pay the actuarial cost of those days.
• You said that the actuarial cost of that would have to be paid by the district.
• They would owe the actuarial cost to the pension system.

Keywords: Consideration of SB 176 01:52 Consideration of SB 104 05:03 Consideration of SB 9 08:09 Consideration of SB 129 18:50 Consideration of SB 178 31:20, 958, all

Summary: The House State Government Committee met with a quorum and took up several Senate bills, adopting committee substitutes where offered. Senate Bill 176, relating to statutory committees within the Legislative Research Commission, was presented by Senator Matt Nunn as a cleanup and process-streamlining measure for appointments, vacancies, and appointing authorities. It passed the committee 15-0 with a title amendment. Senate Bill 104, presented by Senator Scott Maiden and the Kentucky Public Employees Deferred Compensation Authority, would update deferred compensation law by adding a fiduciary standard, allowing less expensive liability insurance, making federal-law compliance self-correcting, and authorizing a self-directed brokerage account option. It passed 15-0 with favorable expression. Senate Bill 9, presented by Senator Jimmy Higdon, would change teacher retirement-related leave provisions, including up to 30 days of maternity leave, a 13-day annual rollover toward retirement, limits on using annual leave to increase retirement benefits, reporting requirements, and related cleanup provisions. After questions about maternity leave, district flexibility, and the actuarial cost of additional days, it passed 15-0 with favorable expression. Senate Bill 129, presented by Senator Rocky Adams and House sponsor Representative John Hudson, was described as a housing and redevelopment measure aimed at vacant, abandoned, and tax-delinquent properties in Louisville. Testimony focused on allowing qualified nonprofits to purchase certain tax-delinquent properties after a waiting period, along with provisions on density development, accessory dwelling units, urban development incentives, fire and code enforcement recovery, a Central Business District tax fix, and changes to binding elements. Members raised concerns about nonprofit qualifications, land bank overlap, and county clerk burden; the bill passed 13-1 with one pass and received a title amendment. Senate Bill 178, presented by Senator Mike Nemes, was a short reorganization bill to codify the transfer of the Department of Disability Determination Services Program from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services to the Labor Cabinet. It passed 12-0. The committee then recorded additional votes and adjourned, with the chair thanking members and staff, noting it was likely the final meeting of the year.

Transcript Highlights:

• , our actuary is the largest actuary in the Medicaid space in the country.
• , our actuary is the largest actuary in the Medicaid space in the country.
• <01:44:24.040> our this every day and an actuary our this every day and an actuary our actuary
• <01:44:26.119> in<01:44:26.239> the actuary is the largest actuary in the actuary is
• We talk to the federal actuaries because our actuaries do the work, then the federal actuaries do their

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The House Finance Division Three work session on February 21, 2025 focused on the Division of Medicaid Services budget. The chair opened with procedural guidance, noting the division’s role is to make recommendations to the full Finance Committee, that the budget must be balanced, and that members should track possible amendments ahead of a March 26 target for House Bills 1 and 2. Members also discussed the importance of using official budget documents and online resources, and the chair said no motions would be taken at this session. A major early topic was concern over a five-point Medicaid policy document and the timing of House Bill 2. Representative Tarki objected that the document appeared to be an unofficial draft and argued that significant Medicaid policy changes should have been transmitted by February 15 under state law. He said the lack of an official, posted document raised transparency concerns because the changes could affect tens of thousands of residents. Committee leadership responded that the five-point document was a working document, that it would be posted online within minutes, and that House Bill 2 is often delayed while the Office of Legislative Services finalizes and formats the governor’s proposed trailer bill. DHHS Chief Financial Officer Nathan White and Medicaid Director Henry Litman then began the budget presentation. White said the committee would use the PowerPoint as the document of record, starting with the governor’s operating budget pages 885-893, and noted that Medicaid is the largest accounting area in the state budget. He said the governor’s budget reflects about $60 million in reductions within the Medicaid area, with Granite Advantage handled off-budget and another $10 million in reductions there, for roughly a $70 million difference overall. Members asked whether the comparison was being made against an efficiency budget or a prioritized-needs budget, and White said the department could look at it different ways. The presentation then outlined Medicaid’s role in New Hampshire: it provides health coverage, serves as the state’s direct interface with the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and helps finance related services such as long-term supports, school-based services, adult dental coverage, and re-entry programs for people leaving correctional settings. White also reviewed enrollment and program context, saying New Hampshire has about one in seven residents enrolled in Medicaid, making it the fourth smallest Medicaid program in the country by enrollment, and described recent efforts such as youth re-entry and the Medicaid unwind after the end of the federal continuous coverage period. He said the state had to process more than 238,000 redeterminations after the public health emergency and that the department tried to avoid unnecessary coverage loss during that transition.

Transcript Highlights:

• “A P&C actuary costs upwards of $500,000 to $600,000 in the private market.
• And these are actuaries not just in, you know, if a company hires an actuary, that’s an actuary that
• A P&C actuary costs is paid upwards of $500,000, $600,000 in the private market.
• And these are actuaries not just in, you know, if a company hires an actuary, that's an actuary that
• What our actuaries are doing on a revolving basis is they have to take 1,800, 2,000, 2,500 pages, Our

Summary: The subcommittee met to review agency travel, budget reduction exercises, and member reports from agency meetings. Early discussion focused on the Department of Management Services (DMS), where members questioned the cost of travel for four out-of-state data/cyber staff and the secretary’s absence. DMS defended the hires as highly specialized enterprise cybersecurity and data personnel, said the positions were lawfully paid and posted, and explained that the staff work on statewide data cataloging and cyber risk reduction rather than agency-by-agency systems. Members also raised concerns about fleet inventory discrepancies and requested follow-up information on hiring, travel, and data inventory timelines. The chair said she would consider travel guardrails and possible reductions, and noted that DMS, the Lottery, and the Florida Commission on Human Relations did not meet the requested reduction target, while the Public Employee Relations Commission did not submit reductions. The committee then heard from the Florida Lottery about the secretary’s trip to Paris for the World Lottery Convention. Lottery staff said the trip was reimbursed through the multi-state lottery organization and was intended to share best practices and improve operations, though members questioned the value of the travel and requested reimbursement records and the trip agenda. The subcommittee also reviewed agency reduction exercises from several agencies. The Department of Revenue exceeded its target and was praised for frugality; DFS, the Florida Gaming Control Commission, the Office of Financial Regulation, the Office of Insurance Regulation, the Public Service Commission, the Division of Administrative Hearings, and the Department of Business and Professional Regulation each described how they met or approached their reduction goals, often through vacancies, reversions, or expense cuts. OIR warned that further reductions could hurt insurance regulation capacity, while OFR and PSC said their reductions were based on historical reversions and lower post-COVID travel or vacancy levels. Members then reported back on agency meetings. DMS members raised fleet tracking, real property audits, salary studies, and health plan savings ideas, and asked for follow-up on the Florida PALM project, cybersecurity grants, and state IT modernization. DFS members said the agency was efficient and that its Palm-related work and insurance consumer programs were important. Lottery members emphasized the agency’s revenue generation for education and its low administrative overhead. Gaming Control members highlighted storage costs for seized gaming equipment and suggested technology-based alternatives. PERC members said a union-related law had doubled their workload and asked for more staffing and possible AI assistance. OIR members stressed the need for a Tampa satellite office and more resources to recruit and retain specialized staff. The chair closed by saying the committee would continue reviewing travel, staffing, and reductions with an eye toward taxpayer value and transparency.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, every year, all the actuarial tables were going to hit 8%.
• You know, we then, in later years, the boards—every five years—examine our actuarial assumptions to adjust
• We've made some of the hard adjustments and the actuarial assumptions, with lowering the rate, assuming
• As far as this five-year period that we look at, the people are living longer, the actuaries say you.
• Are living longer, the actuaries say you know you're just going to have to pony up more each year as

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And that the actuary has been mourning on that situation from the inceptions.
• The actuary said at this rate, we can't tell you.
• So, this is an update from our Actuary. We get this every October.
• So, according to our actuary, we're in a very strong actuarial position and we have a reasonable assumption
• Yeah, and then at the recommendation of the actuary, correct.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We now have a Chief Financial Examiner, a Medical Director, a Chief Actuary, a Chief Economist, and a
• Chair, members of the committee, Representative, I can have my Chief Actuary speak to that right now
• Let me check; maybe my chief actuary may have a better answer. Mr.
• Our actuary, our independent actuary who reviews the claims, has estimated that the total dollars that
• So we Through our actuary process, we reserve to the best extent that we can.

Transcript Highlights:

• Of course, it's an actuarial study that you would do.
• Of course, it's an actuarial study that you would do.
• Of course, it's an actuarial study that you would do.
• other than the ones that any actuaries other than the ones that work<00:18:15.120> for<00:18:
• accured liabilities and does actuarial accured liabilities and does not<00:32:45.200> have<00

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So whatever the actuarial rate is—which I forget what the actuarial rate is, 29%, something probably
• Because it's possible that the actuarial rate could be 32% three years from now.
• This is an increase based on increases in health care costs and actuarial projected increases.
• This is an increase based on increases in health care costs and actuarial projected increases.
• This year, the actuaries were telling us, projecting a 13% increased trend.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Can we back up to page 8 under the actuarial evaluation summary?
• My name is Mark Finlaw and I'm with Rudd Wisdom Consulting Actuaries, and our firm provides the actuarial
• So that some years or some biannual actuarial evaluations there's a gain.
• On page 7, you talk about the need for $7 200,000 for actuarial soundness.
• It'll be set into where the actuarially determined contribution will be done by an actuary, and that

Transcript Highlights:

• They say their numbers come from our actuary. That's great, but that's all on your side.
• I would prefer to have our own actuary just to make sure. But I'm hoping nothing happens.
• We have our own actuary that can meet at least twice a year, but more often if necessary, and through
• The actuaries and the CPAs that are now enrolled are there to ensure the accuracy of the... reported
• I would just say that I believe that our actuary may find different things than theirs do.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're actuarially sound. That definition of actuarial soundness is in statute.
• That means that we would be no longer actuarially sound.
• And what I will tell you is actuaries are notoriously conservative, which we like.
• Leslie, head count is part of your actuarially soundness determination.
• That's unfunded actuarial accrued liability.

Keywords: infrastructure, water supply, flood mitigation, Texas Water Fund, community projects, funding allocations

Summary: During this committee meeting, the focus was on discussing critical infrastructure funding, especially related to water supply and flood mitigation projects. Chairwoman Stepney and the Water Development Board presented extensive details regarding the Texas Water Fund, which included $1 billion appropriated to assist various financial programs and tackle pressing water and wastewater issues. Additionally, funding allocations aimed at compromising the state's flood risk and improving water conservation were hotly debated, emphasizing collaboration among committee members and the necessity of addressing community needs in such projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't understand I'm not an actuary.
• <00:30:01.240> had state employees than the actuaries had state employees than the actuaries
• And an ad hoc cola of the actuaries.
• ,<00:59:57.240> and and I said this with the actuaries, and and I said this with the actuaries
• <01:00:11.080> cannot<01:00:12.080> calculate actuaries cannot calculate actuaries cannot

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 7 January, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum present, heard an invocation from Reverend Chip Stevens of First Baptist Church in Jackson, and recited the pledge of allegiance. The body then dispensed with the reading of the journal, committee reports, and bill titles, and received several guest introductions, including the president of Mississippi University for Women, the physician of the day, and the session’s pages. The main item of business was Senate Bill 2004, the Mississippi PERS Stability Act. Senator Sparks explained that the bill would provide a $500 million infusion to the PERS accumulated employers account on July 1, 2026, followed by $50 million annually for 10 years, with backup funding from unobligated general funds if needed. He said the measure was intended to help address the system’s roughly $26 billion liability and to support both state employees and local government employers, noting that the state had already taken other steps to strengthen PERS. The bill was advanced to engrossed status, read for the third time, and placed on the calendar for final passage. Senator Norwood asked whether the funding would help local governments, and Senator Sparks said it would, because the liability is shared by all employers in the system and affects local balance sheets and bond ratings. Senator Bryan then spoke at length in opposition to the broader direction of retirement policy, criticizing the committee process, the fragmentation of retirement legislation, and what he described as incentives for privatization and unfair treatment of new hires. He said he would still vote for the bill because it sends money into the system, but argued that the state should focus retirement benefits on older retirees and avoid further benefit expansions. Senator Sparks responded that the bill was a necessary cash infusion to honor commitments to employees, stabilize the system, and avoid insolvency, and said more PERS legislation would follow.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're also required to provide an actuary report on the financial operation of the Educational Retirement
• Now, we just recently completed our actuarial audit.
• The year before we... ...went through a review of the actuarial assumptions that are baked into this
• We build that into the actuarial assumption.
• So, the other thing—the study on, or the audit, the actuarial audit—I remember in the middle of COVID

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the last remaining statewide pension system program that is not actuarially sound.
• This bill will change that and provide a statutory framework for the state to provide an actuarially
• It would also require the unfunded actuarial accrued liability be determined using an expected investment
• We have Kinwa, A.J.... framework for the state to provide an actuarially determined contribution, which
• It would also require the unfunded actuarial accrued liability be determined using an expected investment

Bills: SB868, SB1337, SB1371, SB1377, SB1426, SB1620, SB2064, SB2065, SJR4

Keywords: SB 868, rural volunteer fire department assistance program, volunteer fire department assistance fund, Texas Government Code, wildfire, wildland fire, high-risk wildfire area, fire suppression, rural fire departments, volunteer firefighters, emergency response, public safety, grant allocation, appropriations, disaster preparedness, tax penalties, interest calculation, overpayment, tax law, refund process

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee heard several bills focused on tax administration, transportation, emergency services, historic preservation, forensic training, pension funding, and the state’s rainy day fund. Senate Bill 1337, by Senator Creighton, would require the comptroller to assess penalty and interest only on the net tax due and allow sales and use tax overpayments to offset underpayments more automatically; it was left pending while the author, comptroller staff, and a private witness continued working on the language and fiscal note. Senate Bill 1371, by Senator Hinojosa, would address Corpus Christi transit authority operations, including emergency refueling coordination, fare-setting procedures, and board term limits; it received supportive testimony and was left pending. Senate Bill 1377, by Senator Perry, would create a grant program for rural counties to buy ambulances, with a committee substitute expanding eligible uses in some cases to equipment and setting a sunset date; numerous EMS officials, county representatives, and association witnesses testified in support, emphasizing rising ambulance costs, staffing shortages, and the need for rural emergency coverage, and the bill was left pending after testimony. Senate Bill 868, by Senator Sparks, would direct at least 10% of volunteer fire department assistance funding to high wildfire-risk areas; Texas A&M Forest Service explained the map and methodology, and the committee substitute was adopted. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1426, which would place the First Capitol State Historic Site in West Columbia under Texas Historical Commission stewardship, and Senate Bill 1620, which would create a Texas Forensic Analyst Apprenticeship Pilot Program through the Office of Court Administration to address forensic scientist shortages; both had no opposition in testimony and their committee substitutes were adopted. Senate Bill 2065 would change the Texas Emergency Services Retirement System funding structure to require an actuarially determined state contribution and address the system’s unfunded liability over 30 years; Pasadena fire department representatives testified that the pension is an important volunteer retention tool, and the bill was left pending after testimony. Senate Joint Resolution 4 would raise the Economic Stabilization Fund cap from 10% to 15% of biennial revenue deposits, with a committee substitute correcting the effective date to September 1, 2027; the committee discussed the fund’s current balance and purpose before adopting the substitute. After quorum was established, the committee voted out the measures. Senate Bill 1868, Senate Bill 1371, Senate Bill 264, Senate Joint Resolution 4, Senate Bill 1426, Senate Bill 1620, and Senate Bill 2065 were all reported favorably to the full Senate, with some bills also certified for the local and uncontested calendar. The committee substitute for Senate Bill 868 was adopted and the bill was reported favorably as well. The committee then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's actuaries, um, uh, staff.
• in the case of Medicaid actuarial in the case of Medicaid actuarial services.<00:30:59.919> We're
• a whole team of actuaries and do that<00:31:02.720> work.
• And to me, for the actuarial services.
• >> to um to certify from an actuarial >> to um to certify from an actuarial standpoint

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the June 9 minutes, then reviewed a deferred personnel contract involving workers’ compensation claims administration. Staff explained that the roughly $50 million figure included about $48 million for claims payments and up to $1.45 million per year for administrative services, with billing based on a fee schedule for specific services rendered. Senator Meredith raised concerns about the vendor’s history, the scoring and bid process, and prior allegations involving the company; the administration responded that the procurement had been conducted under 45A through open competition, with outside scorers and no finding of wrongdoing tied to this contract. Meredith moved to disapprove Contract 167, Hart seconded, and the committee voted 5-2 to disapprove it. The committee then deferred a Western Kentucky University personal services contract because the vendors were still not registered with the Secretary of State’s office. Hart moved to defer the contract until the August 2026 meeting, Meredith seconded, and the motion carried. The committee also approved the agenda covering the various contract lists and deferred items. Next, the committee heard from the Cabinet for Health and Family Services on several personal services contracts for medical staffing and related services. Secretary Steven Stack and staff explained that staffing shortages often require outside vendors, that the contracts were competitively bid under 45A, and that the cabinet uses a streamlined vendor pool for specialized needs such as actuaries, auditors, and technical consultants. The committee approved Contracts 52 through 55 without objection. Discussion then began on Contract 61, with Meredith expressing concern that the committee lacked enough detail to judge whether the services could be performed in-house or whether the exchange of resources was appropriate; Stack said the contract was intended to provide efficient access to specialized outside expertise. The transcript cuts off before a final vote on Contract 61 is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• I've asked, I want my own actuary to work with to show the total cost of all these things that we're
• If you actually have an actuary...
• I've asked, I want my own actuary to work with to show the total cost of all these things that we're
• Only an actuary can show you that total cost of care.
• Only an actuary can show you that total cost of care.

Bills: HB165, HB175, HB198, HB272, HB457, HB488, HB566, HB603, HB763, HB902, HB909, HB971, HB981, HB1066, HB1125, HB1154, HB1231

Keywords: HB165, lottery proceeds, Lottery Proceeds Fund, Veterans Service Grant Fund, constitutional amendment, veterans, military veterans, veterans' benefits, veterans services, family support, state lottery, education funding, Minimum Foundation Program, problem gambling, compulsive gaming, state treasurer, ballot proposition, constitutional referendum, lottery revenue, Louisiana resident veterans

Transcript Highlights:

• That means that We're actuarially sound. That definition of actuarial soundness is in statute.
• And unfortunately, that analysis from our actuary did create some confusion.
• That means that we would be no longer actuarially sound.
• Lastly, headcount is part of your actuarially soundness determination.
• Sorry for the abbreviation there, that's Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, yes, it goes into the calculation, and the actuaries have fun deciding what it is, but if we
• But if they didn't do the actuary with that in there, then that would make the actuary incorrect, maybe
• that's why the actuary is different than what you think it is. years of creditable service that part
• incorrect maybe that's why the actuary incorrect maybe that's why the actuary<00:33:10.960> is
• <00:35:34.320> are different that but if the actuaries are different that but if the actuaries

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee reviewed selected House Bill 2 provisions, focusing first on the group two pension reform language and whether it matched prior legislation and the fiscal note. Members discussed two main issues: the treatment of extra and special duty pay in the pension calculation for employees hired before 2011, and the annuity multiplier after 15 years of creditable service. Several members said the HB 2 language was intended to restore prior law and protect against pension “spiking,” while others worried the draft and fiscal note may not have fully reflected current law, potentially affecting the cost estimate. The discussion repeatedly emphasized the need to avoid underfunding or double counting and to make sure Finance had the correct actuarial assumptions. No vote was taken; the committee agreed to flag the issues for Finance and to clarify the fiscal note. Members also discussed the vested-rights language, which was described as an explicit definition of vesting and a restriction on future legislative changes to compensation calculations after three years of service. Some viewed it as a policy protection with no immediate fiscal impact, while others noted it had been included in prior legislation and should be clearly understood before the bill moved forward. The committee also briefly referenced prior pension legislation, including House Bill 436 and House Bill 727, and noted that HB 2 was being used to carry forward related pension repair provisions. The committee then turned to an OPLC-related section transferring building, plumbing, electrical, and fuel gas inspector positions from OPLC to the Department of Safety’s Fire Marshal’s office. Testimony explained that the nine inspector positions are funded from the licensing fund, and that the move was justified as a public-safety function better aligned with the Fire Marshal’s mission because the inspections are statewide code-enforcement work rather than facility-specific licensing work. The discussion ended with a note that the remaining HB 2 changes run through 2034 and a brief announcement about memorial arrangements for C.J. Gerard.