AB139 requires the state and workers in specified California state bargaining units to prefund retiree health care by setting unit-by-unit employee contribution schedules and matching employer contributions. The bill stitches together staggered percentage increases, temporary contribution suspensions for certain fiscal years, and an automatic adjustment rule that aims to hold employer and employee shares at 50 percent of actuarially determined normal costs.
This matters because it changes take-home pay for covered employees, locks recurring employer obligations into statutory language, and creates a mechanics-driven path to reduce unfunded retiree-health liabilities. The mix of hard schedules, suspension windows, and annual actuarial triggers creates both budget predictability and new implementation complexity for payroll, bargaining, and actuarial offices.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill prescribes specific employee contribution percentages for each listed State Bargaining Unit and requires matching state contributions; it timestamps phased increases, authorizes suspensions in designated fiscal years, and implements an adjustment mechanism tied to actuarially determined total normal costs. Contributions must be deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and are nonrefundable.
Who It Affects
State employees who are eligible for health benefits in the named bargaining units (including permanent intermittent employees), their unions and negotiators, the Department of Human Resources and payroll offices, and the state budget/finance offices tasked with providing matching contributions. It also affects future retirees whose benefits rely on the prefunding.
Why It Matters
AB139 shifts the state’s approach to prefunding OPEB from ad hoc decisions to defined contribution paths, reallocating current compensation toward long-term retiree-health funding while embedding limits (0.5% annual adjustment cap) and temporary relief clauses that will shape near-term budgets and long-term liabilities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB139 writes a prefunding regime into statute for most California state bargaining units by listing which units must prefund retiree health care and then spelling out the employee-side schedules that the state will match. Rather than one uniform rule, the bill uses unit-by-unit timetables: many units ramp employee contributions in three or more staged increases beginning in fiscal years that start in 2016–2020, with matching employer contributions required at the same percentages.
Several units also have later rebalancing rules that trigger automatic adjustments to hold employer and employee shares at 50 percent of the actuarial normal cost.
The bill contains two recurring structural features. First, it authorizes year‑to‑year automatic adjustments when the actuarially determined total normal cost changes by more than one-half of one percent, with increases or decreases capped at 0.5 percentage points in any single fiscal year.
Second, it includes carve-outs that suspend employee or employer contributions in specific fiscal years (notably the 2020–21 fiscal year for many units, and selected suspensions in 2025–26 and 2026–27 for others). Those suspensions provide temporary budget relief but are written to restart or trigger later adjustments tied to ratification or fixed dates.Unit 5 is treated as a special case: the bill redirects a statutory 3.4 percent salary increase toward prefunding OPEB, phases in a schedule that targets a 3.4/3.4 employer/employee split by 2024, and requires incorporation of that redirection into the regular salary survey process.
The statute also says that contributions must go into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and cannot be refunded to departing employees or beneficiaries. Finally, if a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or addenda negotiated under collective bargaining conflicts with the statute, the MOU governs — except that any MOU provision that requires additional expenditures won’t take effect unless the Legislature approves those expenditures in the annual Budget Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill suspends employee OPEB prefunding contributions for many units during the 2020–21 fiscal year while generally requiring employers to continue contributing that year.
Annual adjustments to contribution rates are triggered only if actuarial total normal costs move by more than 0.5 percentage points, and any change in a single year cannot exceed 0.5 percentage points.
Unit 5 redirects a 3.4% statutory salary increase to prefund OPEB and phases both employer and employee contributions to arrive at equal 3.4% shares by July 1, 2024 (subject to ratification timing).
All contributions under the statute must be deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and are explicitly nonrefundable to employees, beneficiaries, or survivors.
Where a negotiated MOU conflicts with the statute, the MOU controls, but MOU provisions that increase expenditures don’t take effect unless the Legislature approves funding in the annual Budget Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Which bargaining units must prefund retiree health care and target date
This subdivision lists the State Bargaining Units covered and sets the statutory goal: reach a 50-percent employer/employee split of actuarially determined normal costs by unit-specific target dates (ranging from 2017 to 2020). Practically, the clause establishes the statutory expectation that both sides share normal cost equally and ties later adjustment mechanics to that goal.
Unit-by-unit employee contribution schedules with state matching
Subdivision (b) contains detailed, unit-specific schedules (Unit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, etc.). Each entry sets initial percentage points and phased increases tied to July 1 dates or the first pay period following ratification. For several units the statute also specifies when employer matching begins or is suspended. Because each unit’s language differs, payroll and bargaining teams must parse separate start dates, ratification triggers and percentage ceilings rather than applying a single uniform rule across the workforce.
Temporary suspensions of contributions in specific fiscal years
Multiple unit entries include suspension provisions that pause employee or employer contributions in specified fiscal years — most commonly the 2020–21 year and, for some units, 2025–26 and 2026–27. Those suspensions are explicit and statutory, providing near-term relief to paychecks or the employer budget as written, but they also create known gaps in prefunding that actuaries and budget offices must account for when projecting long-term funding trajectories.
Automatic actuarial adjustments to maintain 50/50 cost sharing
Several unit provisions authorize periodic adjustments to both employer and employee contribution percentages if the actuarially determined total normal costs change by more than 0.5 percentage points from the baseline. Adjustments are limited to 0.5 percentage points per year and are meant to preserve a 50/50 split; some schedules specify different start dates for annual reviews (e.g., commencing July 1, 2022, 2023, or after ratification). The mechanics require actuarial valuations and coordination between CalHR, Director of Finance and payroll to implement changes within the capped bands.
Salary redirection, phased contributions, and salary-survey incorporation
Unit 5 departs from the standard phased-percentage approach by redirecting a statutory 3.4 percent salary increase to prefund OPEB, then phasing employer and employee contribution percentages so total prefunding equals 6.8 percent of pensionable compensation split across the parties. The statute also requires counting that statutory redirection toward the employee contribution and mandates that the 3.4 percent be incorporated into the salary survey process following ratification — a provision that directly ties prefunding to routine compensation benchmarking.
Scope and deposit rules
Subdivision (c) limits the section’s application to employees eligible for health benefits, explicitly including permanent intermittent employees. Subdivision (d) requires that all contributions be deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and makes them nonrefundable under any circumstances, a substantive safeguard for prefunding but a permanent forfeiture of the deduced amounts for departing employees.
Interaction with collective bargaining and Director authority
Subdivision (e) sets the hierarchy: if an MOU or addenda negotiated under Section 3517.5 conflicts with the statute, the negotiated agreement controls unless the agreement requires expenditures that the Legislature has not approved in the Budget Act. Subdivision (f) extends coverage to certain excepted employees and lets the Director of the Department of Human Resources set contribution percentages as a percentage of pensionable compensation. Subdivision (g) similarly allows the Director to set contribution percentages for non-bargaining employees and executive branch officers, with the same 50-percent prefunding goal by July 1, 2020.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Current and future retirees and annuitants — stronger prefunding reduces the risk of benefit cuts, unexpected premium spikes, or benefit plan changes by improving the assets available to pay retiree health costs.
- State fiscal managers and bondholders — clearer, statutory prefunding plans reduce disclosed unfunded OPEB liabilities and improve long-term budget forecasting and credit analysis.
- Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund (plan integrity) — direct, nonrefundable deposits increase the Fund’s net inflows and legal protection against refunds, supporting actuarial solvency assumptions.
- Employees in units with matching contributions negotiated here — the statute locks in employer matches, creating a transparent employer contribution baseline that unions can rely on during future negotiations.
Who Bears the Cost
- Current covered employees — phased payroll deductions reduce take-home pay as the scheduled percentages phase in and resume after suspensions; Unit-specific timing means unequal near-term impacts across workers.
- The State General Fund and employers — required matching contributions create a recurring employer cost and constrain budget flexibility, especially once suspensions end and automatic adjustments resume.
- Unions and bargaining representatives — they must manage ratification timing and trade-offs between salary/other benefits and prefunding obligations, and may face political pressure from members.
- Human Resources, payroll operations and actuarial teams — the unit-by-unit schedules, ratification-based triggers, suspensions and annual actuarial adjustments impose administrative complexity and system-change costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether to prioritize steady, actuarially sound prefunding of retiree health benefits (protecting future retirees and the state’s fiscal health) or to preserve current employee take-home pay and bargaining flexibility; AB139 seeks a middle path with statutory schedules and temporary suspensions, but that approach forces a trade-off between near-term relief and long-term funding stability.
AB139 mixes statutory contribution schedules with negotiated outcomes and episodic suspensions, which creates several implementation challenges. First, suspending employee or employer contributions in specified fiscal years undermines the steady prefunding path that actuaries assume and complicates projections: temporary pauses reduce near-term inflows and require recalibrations to reach the 50-percent target later, potentially forcing larger future increases within the 0.5% per-year cap.
Second, the statute’s ratification triggers and varied start dates (first pay period following ratification, fixed July 1 dates, or no sooner-than dates) mean that identical employees in different units or even in the same unit may see different effective dates, complicating payroll programming and member communications.
There is also a legal‑fiscal tension in the MOU supremacy clause: negotiated MOUs can override the statute, but any MOU provision that increases expenditures won’t take effect absent Budget Act approval. That creates a gap where an MOU may promise contribution changes that cannot be implemented until the Legislature funds them, producing uncertainty for both bargaining parties.
Finally, giving the Director of the Department of Human Resources authority to set percentages for excepted employees introduces discretionary policymaking that can produce equity issues across employee classes unless transparent criteria and timelines are used.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.