Transcript Highlights:

• Notable differences between the two plans include the retirement age in LEOFF 2.
• I've assumed you work this out with LEOFF 2 board, is that right? I'm sorry, sir.
• The LEOFF 2 board represents firefighters, yes?
• It's not coming from the LEOFF 2 board? No, it is not coming from the LEOFF 2 board.
• We acknowledge that there is still some review that is needed by the LEOFF board. Okay, great.

Bills: SB6073, SB6113, SB6116, SB6129, SB6162, SB6114, SB5857

Keywords: SB 6073, LEOFF, Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System, retirement system, pension, public safety retirement, wildland firefighter, aviation firefighter, wildland fire, forest firefighter, Department of Natural Resources, DNR, firefighter benefits, retirement benefits, service credit, disability retirement, survivor benefits, employer contributions, Washington RCW, public employees

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held public hearings on several tax and retirement-related bills. Senate Bill 6073 would move eligible Department of Natural Resources wildland and aviation firefighters from PERS into LEOFF 2 prospectively. Committee staff outlined the higher retirement age and benefit costs under LEOFF 2 and noted a small implementation cost and a modest actuarial rate increase. DNR and labor representatives supported the bill, saying the firefighters face significant physical and mental risks and deserve LEOFF coverage; a senator asked about LEOFF board review and was told the bill was requested by DNR, not the board. Senate Bill 6113 was presented as a set of technical and administrative tax-code fixes tied largely to last session’s ESSB 5814, including clarifying taxable retail services, use tax treatment, a transition period for businesses reclassified into retailing B&O, and other corrections. DOR said the bill codifies guidance and is revenue neutral, while several speakers from schools, arts groups, newspapers, broadcasters, and business organizations said some provisions go beyond technical cleanup and would continue or expand unintended consequences from last year’s tax changes. Concerns focused on sales tax treatment of school services, live presentations and rehearsals, and a new section affecting newspaper and broadcaster advertising exemptions if litigation is lost. Some business groups were supportive of the technical fixes but asked for amendments. Senate Bill 6116 would restore the vapor products tax structure for nicotine-containing vapor products, moving them back to the per-milliliter tax and restoring revenue distributions to the Andy Hill Cancer Research account and the Foundational Public Health Services account, retroactive to January 1, 2026. Supporters from public health and the cancer fund said the bill would correct an unintended diversion of revenue and preserve funding, while tobacco-control groups opposed lowering the tax on vapor products, arguing it would weaken public health policy. Retailers and harm-reduction advocates supported the bill, saying the 95% tax created compliance problems, harmed small businesses, and encouraged illicit sales. Senate Bill 6129 proposed a broader overhaul of nicotine and tobacco taxes, including a single 90% tax on nicotine products, a 10% flavor tax, higher cigarette taxes, and new distributions to cancer research and public health accounts. Public health, pediatric, and anti-tobacco groups strongly supported the bill as a way to reduce youth use and raise revenue, while retailers, tobacco businesses, and some consumers opposed it as regressive, harmful to small businesses, and likely to drive sales to illicit or out-of-state markets. Several speakers also raised concerns about tribal consultation, the treatment of menthol and flavored products, and the impact on modified-risk products. The committee also heard briefings and began testimony on Senate Bill 6162, a property tax reform bill that would expand senior and disability property tax relief, increase income thresholds and deductions, and consolidate the state property tax rate.

Transcript Highlights:

• So the first bill deals with LEOFF Plan 1.
• The restated LEOFF 1 keeps all the existing benefits of the current LEOFF 1 but has less assets in it
• Also mandated by the legislature was a study directed to the LEOFF 2 board, and the LEOFF 2 board has
• The LEOFF 2 Board has been tasked with looking at membership in LEOFF 2 for Department of Natural Resources
• But you have your study of LEOFF 1 medical.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We became the retained actuary for the LEOFF 2 Board, and then OSA initiated some... ...for the LEOFF
• I'm at LEOFF 2 staff. All right. Again, my name is Dave Dunlap. I'm at LEOFF 2 staff.
• And that doesn't really impact a lot of LEOFF 2 members, but I think it's important for the LEOFF 2 board
• And that doesn't really impact a lot of LEOFF 2 members, but I think it's important for the LEOFF 2 board
• LEOFF 2.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Something down... ...taking care of these LEOFF 1 retirees.
• 1 and LEOFF 2 members in a single system.
• We've had a bill before us here once before to try to merge LEOFF 1 and LEOFF 2, and it went down.
• Once before, to try to merge LEOFF 1 and LEOFF 2, and it went down.
• It went down because the LEOFF 1 members did not even want to be merged with LEOFF 2.

Bills: SB6061, SB6234, SB6176, SB6335, SB6047, HB2235, HB2464, HB2619, HB1376, SB5808, SB5949, HB1347, HB1759, HB1983, HB2120, HB2264, HB2338, HB2385, HB2495, HB2521, HB2604, HB2610, HB2675, HB2426

Keywords: tourism, self-supported assessment, funding, statewide promotion, economic development, sewage, grinder pumps, residential buildings, regulation, construction, vehicle registration, enforcement, renewal, transportation, state law, state commission, infrastructure, traffic safety, responsibilities, state capital projects

Summary: The Senate considered Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2034, a measure to terminate and restate the LEOFF 1 pension plan and use surplus funds for other state purposes if federal approval is obtained. During debate, senators discussed whether the plan should remain funded at 110% or 120% of actuarial value, whether surplus dollars should instead go to transportation or the budget stabilization account, whether members should receive an additional distribution, and whether local governments should be reimbursed for retiree health care costs. Several amendments were offered: a Gildon amendment to raise the funding target to 120% failed; a technical Robinson amendment adding a date passed; Holy, King, Harris, Schessler, and Conway amendments addressing member distributions, transportation, budget stabilization, local government health care costs, and a reconstituted board distribution all failed; and Robinson’s amendment removing Climate Commitment Act repayment language passed. The Ways and Means striking amendment, as amended, was then adopted. On final passage, supporters argued the bill was actuarially sound, had been reviewed by attorneys, actuaries, the State Investment Board, and the Department of Retirement Systems, and would allow use of excess funding for other state needs. Opponents warned it left too little in the pension fund, should dedicate surplus dollars only to one-time uses, and did not adequately reimburse cities and counties for retiree medical obligations. After debate, the Senate passed E2SHB 2034 by a vote of 25 yeas, 22 nays, with one absent and one excused. Afterward, the Senate returned to Substitute House Bill 2178, which was also passed on final passage by a vote of 39 yeas and 9 nays, with one excused. The chamber then adjourned until the next scheduled meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I've just raised that because I've talked with the LEOFF 2 Board about it.
• I think Jacob White with the LEOFF 2 Board is planning to join you in July to hear from the LEOFF 2 Board
• And then where did the LEOFF 1 funding come from? So, like a history of the LEOFF 1 funding.
• does studying LEOFF 2 excess compensation.
• And then as far as, you know, LEOFF 2 excess compensation.

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:

• LEOFF Plan 1 is terminated and the new restated LEOFF system is created.
• that the LEOFF Plan 2 Retirement Board has no position on any of the LEOFF Plan 1 provisions in this
• 1 and LEOFF 2 retirees.
• 1 and LEOFF 2 retirees.
• I represent LEOFF 1 Coalition.

Summary: The committee took up executive action on the capital budget, Proposed Substitute Senate Bill 6003, and several policy bills. Staff described amendments to the capital budget that shifted funding among behavioral health, local/community projects, irrigation projects, and juvenile rehabilitation capacity, plus a technical fix to the water pollution control revolving program. The committee adopted Senator Dozier’s budget-neutral amendment and a technical amendment, then advanced the amended capital budget to the Rules Committee. It also moved House Bills 2441, 2124, 2471, 2133, 2610, and 2338 forward with due-pass recommendations, and advanced Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2251 on Climate Commitment Act accounts to the Transportation Committee after adopting two amendments and withdrawing three others. A major public hearing focused on Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2034, which would terminate and restate LEOFF Plan 1 in 2029, transfer surplus assets, and direct portions to the Climate Commitment Account and the pension funding stabilization account. Staff said the plan is currently about 160% funded and explained the bill’s IRS-review process, statute of limitations, and estimated implementation costs. Testimony was sharply divided: some retirees, firefighters, counties, and cities opposed the bill as an improper use of pension assets and urged benefit enhancements or protection of local medical obligations, while others supported using the surplus for broader public purposes. No vote was taken on the bill during the hearing. The committee also heard House Bill 2179 on PERS coverage for certain port workers, with ports and the Washington Public Ports Association supporting clarification for railroad employees covered by the federal railroad retirement system. House Bill 1069, allowing Department of Corrections employees to bargain over supplemental retirement benefits, drew support from Teamsters and corrections workers, while House Bill 2091, expanding employee-information sharing with bargaining representatives, drew union support and privacy objections from Washington Policy Center. Finally, Second Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1210 on targeted urban area tax preferences drew support from labor, local governments, and project proponents, and opposition from contractor groups and environmental advocates over project labor agreement requirements and nuclear-related concerns; Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1408 on community preservation and development authorities and Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1974 on land bank authorities for affordable housing were also heard, with both receiving supportive testimony from community and housing advocates.

Transcript Highlights:

• LEOFF Plan 1 is terminated and the new restated LEOFF system is created.
• Every member in LEOFF 1 is transferred to the new restated LEOFF system with identical benefits, with
• that the LEOFF Plan 2 Retirement Board has no position on any of the LEOFF Plan 1 provisions in this
• 1 and LEOFF 2 retirees.
• I represent LEOFF 1 Coalition.

Bills: HB1069, HB2091, SB6355, HB2104, SB6003, HB2441, HB2124, HB2610, HB2338

Keywords: collective bargaining, retirement benefits, employee rights, public sector, supplemental benefits, public employers, employee information, bargaining representatives, labor relations, union representation, electric transmission, energy policies, infrastructure, regulatory framework, transmission systems, aviation, wildland fires, funding, disaster relief, emergency response

Transcript Highlights:

• The line just below it is all plans besides LEOFF 1.
• I'm a LEOFF 1 retiree from the King County Sheriff's Office.
• LEOFF 1 members deserve a rebate for their excess contributions.
• Transferring LEOFF 1 money to other pension funds is an unfair tax on LEOFF 1 members.
• LEOFF 1 funds are dedicated exclusively for the benefit of LEOFF 1 members and beneficiaries.

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:

• regarding last year's House Bill 2034, which, as you're aware, sought to terminate and restate the LEOFF
• So a quick LEOFF 1 medical study update.
• And we received data from the department when we did that LEOFF 2 fiscal note.
• So now we're... ...already have language on it for the LEOFF 2 system.
• LEOFF 1 funding. And you could do that in any case. You could apply it.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• They're both a prior act board and a LEOFF 1 disability board.
• the LEOFF 1 boards.
• Every two years, the office produces the LEOFF 1 OPEB report.
• The LEOFF 1 OPEB report provides a statewide estimate of the total LEOFF 1 medical liabilities for local
• I'm sure the LEOFF 1 will be able to answer some of these questions as well, the LEOFF 1 members and

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The disability committees on LEOFF 1 is one of the major study issues. I think that we...
• And then we could also do a separate briefing, a third briefing, on the LEOFF 1 medical study.
• And then we could also do a separate briefing, a third briefing, on the LEOFF 1 medical study.
• And then we could also do a separate briefing, a third briefing, on the LEOFF 1 medical study.
• You know, I'll let you know the LEOFF 1 members.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that's a... ...from our friends in the LEOFF system as well, so I think that's a good approach.
• And this would provide for medical reimbursements for LEOFF 2 members, similar to what now the LEOFF
• LEOFF 2 members.
• The LEOFF 2 Board last year studied this topic.
• Chair, but I'm certainly happy to talk about things like the LEOFF 1 study.

Summary: The executive committee approved the May minutes by roll call vote, then received an actuarial update from Sarah Baker of the State Actuary’s Office. Baker explained the office’s annual work, including the DRS pension actuarial evaluation, support for state financial reporting, cash flow analysis, a six-year pension contribution outlook, interim support for GIT and WAL CARES, and an upcoming actuarial evaluation of the volunteer firefighters pension plan. She also responded to questions about bills allowing members to transfer into PERS, noting that such transfers have historically increased PERS costs and that any added cost would be borne by PERS members and employers depending on bill structure and affected demographics. Kate Adams of the Attorney General’s office reported no new developments in the cases the committee is monitoring. She said the Dawson case is still in its early stages, with a judge assigned and a discovery plan due at the end of July. The committee asked for continued updates on that litigation. The committee then discussed interim work planning, focusing first on animal control officers’ eligibility for PERS and asking staff to continue researching definitions, comparable treatment in nearby states, and the cost and service-credit implications for affected employees. Members also discussed Plan 3 issues, including comparisons of Plan 2 and Plan 3 membership and data, and possible future briefing topics. The largest discussion centered on Plan 1 COLAs: members and retiree representatives debated whether to pursue a permanent COLA or an ad hoc COLA, and whether budget language should require future budget writers to consider a COLA. Retiree groups said they preferred a permanent COLA but were open to further discussion; staff was asked to continue work on possible language and policy options. The committee reviewed correspondence on four topics: Plan 1 COLA requests, a request to study LEOFF 2-style medical reimbursements for Washington State Patrol survivors, and a request to allow certain members to change survivor option elections after the federal Social Security Fairness Act. The committee agreed to bring the State Patrol medical reimbursement issue and the Social Security Fairness Act issue back for July, with staff to gather more information and provide an informational briefing. The July agenda was approved and includes the OSA annual update, the LEOFF 2 Board annual update, a PERS/TRS Plan 1 ad hoc COLA item, and the two survivor-related topics.

Transcript Highlights:

• That was the bulk of the original funding of LEOFF 1. Mr.
• We're tired of the LEOFF pensioners still being around, and we have this large amount of money, Mr.
• In the LEOFF 1 system, there are currently 2,658-ish LEOFF 1 members on disability.
• Yes, I'm a LEOFF 2 member and I'm drawing my pension.
• And I'm blessed with a 3% annual cost increase, not quite like LEOFF 1, but certainly well above.

Bills: HB2720, HB2073, SB5816, SB5919, SB5831, SB6244, SB6044, SB5109, SB5877, SB6258

Keywords: behavioral health, emergency services, health insurance, provider access, mental health funding, premium assistance, funding, healthcare, subsidies, juice grapes, agriculture, commerce, state regulation, market access, fire safety, insurance incentives, best practices, community protection, voluntary measures, mortgage modification

Transcript Highlights:

• And this would provide for medical reimbursements for WSPRS members, similar to what now the LEOFF 2
• I mean that it is connected to law enforcement because it has to do with members who are in LEOFF who
• Related to surviving spouses for a line-of-duty death, the LEOFF 2 board last year studied this topic
• The OSA annual update, the LEOFF 2 Board annual update, PERS and TERS...
• Chair, but I'm certainly happy to talk about things like the LEOFF 1 study.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• restated LEOFF system with 110% funding on June 30, 2029.
• They would consider the Select Committee or the LEOFF Board.
• Yes, the underlying bill has the new system under the LEOFF Board. Is that accurate? Yes.
• I mean, yes, we could, because under the bill, LEOFF system will be put inside a new LEOFF system.
• system moving to LEOFF Board.

Bills: HB2675, HB2249, HB2120, HB1069, HB1983, HB2431, SB6006, SB6297, SB6351, SB6353, HB2521, HB2091, HB2104, SB6355, HB2254, HB2385, SB5808, HB1796, HB1376, SB6260, HB2353

Keywords: accounts, finance, business regulation, transparency, audits, HB 2249, Washington Technology Solutions, WaTech, civil service, classified service, exempt employees, state employment, state personnel, network security, cybersecurity, information technology, IT contracting, data center, systems integration, network engineering

Transcript Highlights:

• Notable differences between the two plans include the retirement age in LEOFF 2.
• of moving the population, the later service of the existing population, from PERS into LEOFF 2.
• I've assumed you work this out with LEOFF 2 board, is that right? I'm sorry, sir.
• The LEOFF 2 board represents firefighters, yes.
• It's not coming from the LEOFF 2 board? No, it is not coming from the LEOFF 2 board.

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on several tax and retirement bills, beginning with Senate Bill 6073, which would move eligible Department of Natural Resources wildland and aviation firefighters from PERS into LEOFF 2 prospectively. Committee staff described the higher retirement age and benefit differences between the systems and noted a small implementation cost and a modest actuarial rate increase. DNR, the Washington Public Employees Association, and a committee member all raised support or questions, with DNR acknowledging additional review with the LEOFF board was still needed. The hearing then turned to Senate Bill 6113, a Department of Revenue request bill making technical and administrative changes to the tax code, including clarifications tied to last session’s ESSB 5814 service-tax changes, a six-month transition period for reclassified businesses, and a section affecting advertising-related exclusions. DOR said the bill was revenue neutral and intended to codify guidance and improve certainty, while school districts, arts groups, broadcasters, newspapers, and business groups testified both in support of the technical fixes and in opposition to provisions they said would continue or worsen unintended consequences from last year’s tax law. Senators also questioned how some definitions would apply, especially to school and higher-education-related services. Senate Bill 6116 would restore the vapor-products tax structure by moving nicotine-containing vapor products back under the per-milliliter vapor tax instead of the 95% other tobacco products tax, and would restore distributions to the Andy Hill Cancer Research account and Foundational Public Health Services account. Public health agencies, cancer research representatives, and some retailers supported the bill as a fix to funding disruptions, while tobacco-control groups opposed lowering the tax and argued it would weaken public health policy. The committee also heard that the current law creates a double-tax issue on pre-existing inventory because products held when the definition changed became subject to a new tax classification. Finally, Senate Bill 6129 proposed a broader nicotine-tax overhaul, including a 90% tax on nicotine products, a 10% tax on flavored nicotine products, higher cigarette taxes, and new revenue distributions and tribal compact provisions. Supporters, including public health organizations, pediatricians, and civil rights advocates, said higher taxes would reduce youth use and restore funding for cancer research and public health; opponents, including retailers, tobacco and vapor businesses, broadcasters, and some harm-reduction advocates, argued the bill was regressive, would fuel illicit markets, and would harm small businesses and adult consumers using lower-risk products. The committee then began a briefing on Senate Bill 6162, a property tax reform bill that would expand senior and disability property tax relief, adjust state property tax rates, and change property tax billing statements, but the hearing on that bill was not completed in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• new restated LEOFF system with 110% funding on June 30, 2029.
• They would consider the Select Committee or LEOFF 2 Board.
• Yes, the underlying bill has the new system under the LEOFF 2 Board.
• I mean, yes, we could, because under the bill LEOFF 1 will be put inside a new LEOFF system.
• system moving to LEOFF 2.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met in executive session on March 2, 2026, and worked through two large groups of bills, hearing staff briefings, caucusing, and then voting each measure out to the Rules Committee. In the first group, the committee advanced bills on state accounts (HB 2675, with an amendment creating an adult day service facilities account), immigrant worker protections (2SHB 2105, after adopting a striker and Amendment 8 while rejecting amendments that would have changed enforcement and private rights of action), voting rights compliance (E3SHB 1710, with all proposed amendments rejected), AI content provenance and notices (E2SHB 1170, with Amendment 19 adopted to exempt state/local/tribal governments and certain video-game and technical uses), public official protections (2SHB 233, with a technical amendment adopted), WOTEC civil service coverage (HB 2249), JLARC work plan changes (HB 2120), LEOFF Plan 1 termination/restatement (E2SHB 2034, with several amendments adopted including creation of a pension surplus holding account and study directives, while proposals to redirect funds to the Climate Commitment Act or provide a lump-sum payment were rejected or withdrawn), supplemental retirement bargaining (HB 1069, with a striker adopted), port employee retirement exclusions (EHB 2179, with a striker adopted), local government revenue flexibility (ESHB 2442, with Amendment 72 adopted to remove a county public utility tax and other amendments rejected), wildfire mitigation funding (SHB 2089), and timberland REET changes (HB 1983). The committee also noted that it would not take action on some items in the packet, including SHB 1833. In the second group, the committee advanced bills on local housing tax remittance programs (ESHB 1717), renewable energy tax incentives and grants (E3SHB 1960, with a striking amendment adopted that adjusted rates, timing, and related provisions), nonprofit fundraising hall property tax relief (HB 2431), food bank sales tax relief (SB 6006), local tax increment financing (E2SHB 2451), temporary staffing services for nonprofit behavioral health entities (SB 6297), school and child care-related sales tax exemptions (SSB 6351, with a substitute adopted and the competing amendment made out of order), behavioral health work group extension and leadership council creation (2SHB 2429), Working Connections Child Care changes (SB 6353, with Amendment 43 adopted), language access guidelines for state agencies (SHB 2475), unpaid wage recovery (2SHB 2479), firearms background check fee authority (HB 2521, briefed but not acted on in the portion provided), public employee information sharing (HB 2091, briefed but not acted on in the portion provided), and Office of Independent Investigations jurisdiction changes (ESHB 2508, briefed but not acted on in the portion provided). Throughout the meeting, members and staff discussed fiscal notes, implementation costs, and whether amendments would increase or reduce state impacts, with several amendments aimed at narrowing scope, delaying implementation, or shifting enforcement and funding responsibilities.

Transcript Highlights:

• In the LEOFF 1 system, there are currently 2,658-ish LEOFF 1 members on disability.
• Yes, I'm a LEOFF 2 member and I'm drawing my pension.
• And I'm blessed with a 3% annual cost increase, not quite like LEOFF 1, but certainly well above.
• overfunded then, at which point a more natural progression, perhaps, into redistributing those funds into LEOFF
• And, you know, the ones that are still left with us, the ones that are still left in this LEOFF 1 system

Summary: The House was called to order, a quorum was confirmed, and members recited the Pledge of Allegiance and a prayer. The chamber approved the previous day’s minutes, held brief party caucuses, and received a Senate message announcing the signing of engrossed substitute House Bill 1187. The House then moved through third-reading business on several bills, concurring in Senate amendments before final passage votes. Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1795, dealing with school restraint and isolation practices, drew the most debate. Supporters said the Senate changes added clarity and strengthened protections around restraint, while opponents argued schools and private providers serving high-need students need more training and funding before restrictions are tightened. The bill passed 58-37. Engrossed House Bill 1941, allowing small cannabis producers to form limited agricultural cooperatives, also passed after debate over whether cannabis should be treated as an agricultural product; it passed 69-26. Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2034, concerning the use of surplus pension funds from the LEOFF 1 plan, generated extensive opposition from members who said pension money should remain for retirees and first responders and warned against using it to balance the budget. Supporters described the measure as a prudent fiscal step for an overfunded closed plan. It passed 50-46. House Bill 1526, which allows snack bar licensees to sell wine by the glass, passed 87-9, and Second Substitute House Bill 1701, allowing independently owned wineries and breweries to lease third-party kitchen space, passed 89-7. The House then went at ease.

Transcript Highlights:

• That excludes LEOFF 2.
• So the four-year pause on PERS, TERS, and LEOFF 1—LEOFF 1's already paused a long time.
• PERS, TERS, and LEOFF 1—the LEOFF 1's already paused a long time ago.
• I know that the LEOFF 2 contribution rates that were adopted in '24, they had adopted rates through '
• They're not in LEOFF currently. Well, that's, I don't know yet.

Keywords: 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of those regular updates from key pension partners, the LEOFF 2 Board, Office of the State Actuary
• And then also separately, another presentation could be kind of the LEOFF 1 study, kind of an initial
• And then also separately, another presentation could be kind of the LEOFF 1 study, kind of an initial
• And then also separately, another presentation could be kind of the LEOFF 1 study, kind of an initial
• I know a lot of talk about the LEOFF 1 study, getting that in there, and then with Senator Robinson kind

Summary: The Select Committee on Pension Policy executive committee met to approve the November minutes, which were adopted by voice vote. The committee then received an update from the Attorney General’s Office on two ongoing cases, Fowler and Joel Lynn, with briefing and oral argument timelines still pending. Michael Harbour of the Office of the State Actuary provided an actuarial update focused on ESSB 5357, explaining that the bill raised the assumed investment return from 7% to 7.25%, suspended UAL contribution rates for four years, and changed amortization for past benefit improvements; members asked for clarification on how those changes would affect long-term funding and contribution rates, especially for Plan 1 systems. A substantial portion of the meeting was devoted to committee discussion of interim priorities and the need for more analysis of recent pension legislation. Members emphasized the importance of understanding the fiscal impacts of ESSB 5357 and related pension changes before the September economic experience study, and several asked staff to provide a more preliminary walkthrough of the bill’s effects. The committee also discussed the LEOFF 1 study and broader questions about overfunding, including when a plan should be considered overfunded and whether overfunding should be addressed through merger or closure proposals. One member suggested reviewing the operating budget’s excess compensation proviso during the interim as well. Staff reviewed the draft 2025 interim work plan, proposing June topics including election of officers, a presentation on SB 5357 and its actuarial implications, and an initial LEOFF 1 study kickoff based on SB 5085 and HB 2034. The committee also placed excess compensation and demographic experience study items in a parking lot for possible later scheduling. The June agenda was adopted by roll call vote, with three ayes and three members absent or excused, and the meeting adjourned after no further business.