SB 140 requires the state and enumerated state bargaining units to prefund retiree health benefits (other postemployment benefits, OPEB) with the stated goal of achieving a 50/50 split of actuarially determined normal costs between employer and employees. It does this by prescribing staggered, unit-specific employee contribution schedules, employer matching contributions, and rules for periodic adjustments based on actuarial valuations.
The bill also builds in several temporary suspensions and deferred employer contributions for certain years, a special phased arrangement for Bargaining Unit 5 that redirects statutory salary increases into OPEB prefunding, deposit and nonrefundable rules for contributions, and a mechanism that allows the Director of the Department of Human Resources to set contribution percentages for excepted employees so they too can reach the 50-percent target.
At a Glance
What It Does
Imposes explicit employee contribution rates for named state bargaining units, requires matching state contributions, and instructs periodic adjustments to maintain a 50-percent employer-employee share of actuarially determined normal OPEB costs. It also creates temporary suspension windows for some contributions and deposits all contributions into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund.
Who It Affects
State employees who are eligible for health benefits in the listed bargaining units (including permanent intermittent employees) and corresponding state payroll administrators; the executive branch as the employer; judges in the judicial branch subject to a separate schedule; and the Director of the Department of Human Resources for excepted employees.
Why It Matters
It converts implicit OPEB obligations into a structured prefunding regime with unit-specific timelines and automatic actuarial triggers, shifting near- and long-term fiscal responsibility between workers and the state and creating operational and bargaining implications for pay, payroll systems, and future labor negotiations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 140 sets a clear prefunding objective: for each covered bargaining unit and the judicial branch, the state and employees should share actuarially determined normal OPEB costs equally (50/50). To get there, the statute lists each bargaining unit and assigns a timeline and a sequence of employee contribution rate increases; in almost all cases the state must match employee payments.
Those sequences were specified as phased increases that, once in place, are typically subject to later adjustments tied to actuarial valuations.
The core mechanics repeat across units: an initial set of fixed percentage increases to employee contributions scheduled on specified July 1 dates, a matching employer contribution, and a backstop allowing annual upward or downward adjustments when the actuarially determined total normal cost moves by more than one-half of one percent. The statute caps adjustments to 0.5 percent per year to limit abrupt swings.
Several units have identical or similar stepped schedules; others (notably Unit 5) receive bespoke treatment that redirects a statutory salary increase into OPEB and stages contributions to reach a specified total prefunding percentage.The law also contains multiple temporary suspensions: many units suspend employee withholding for the 2020–21 fiscal year (employees do not pay that year while employers continue to contribute in most cases), and for a few units the employer contribution is suspended in 2025–26 and 2026–27 while employees continue to pay. These windows create discrete periods where the distribution of contributions departs from the 50/50 goal.
All contributions are to be deposited in the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and are nonrefundable.Practical triggers in the statute matter: some adjustments or rate changes only take effect on the first day of the pay period following ratification of a memorandum of understanding, some have earliest effective dates (for example, no sooner than certain calendar dates), and some require the Director of Finance or the Director of the Department of Human Resources to act (for judicial employees and excepted employees respectively). Finally, where the statute conflicts with a negotiated MOU, the MOU controls unless the provisions require expenditure of funds — in which case those terms need the Legislature’s approval in the annual Budget Act.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Unit 6 employees pay a phased total of 4.0% of pensionable compensation (1.3% in 2016, +1.3% in 2017, +1.4% in 2018); the employer matches, but the employer’s contribution is suspended for fiscal years 2025–26 and 2026–27 while employees’ 4.0% continues.
Most units suspend employee OPEB withholding for the 2020–21 fiscal year (employer contributions generally continue that year); those suspensions are explicitly time-limited to pay periods between July 2020 and June 30, 2021.
The statute requires automatic adjustments to employer and employee percentages when actuarially determined total normal costs change by more than 0.5 percentage points, but any single-year change in either share is capped at 0.5% per year.
Unit 5 has a unique path: effective July 1, 2020 employees initially pay 0% while 3.4% of statutory salary increases are redirected to employer OPEB contributions; beginning no sooner than the first pay period after ratification (but not before July 1, 2021) a phased employee contribution schedule and matched employer contributions will reach a 6.8% total prefunding level.
All contributions must be deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and are explicitly nonrefundable to employees, beneficiaries, or survivors.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Prefunding objective and unit list
Subdivision (a) states the bill’s organizing goal: each listed bargaining unit (and the judicial branch) must prefund retiree health care with the aim of reaching a 50/50 split of actuarially determined normal costs by unit-specific target dates (ranging from July 1, 2017 through July 1, 2020). This provision creates the statutory obligation and sets the target timeline, which drives the contribution schedules and adjustment rules that follow.
Unit-by-unit employee contribution schedules and matching employer contributions
Subdivision (b) contains the detailed rate schedules for each bargaining unit and for the judicial branch. Each subsection lists step increases to employee contribution percentages (for example, 1.3% + 1.3% + 1.4% for Unit 6) with the state required to match those contributions. Language differs across units—some schedules include later built-in review dates, others specify effective dates tied to ratification, and several include caps and triggers for future actuarial adjustments.
Actuarial triggers, annual caps, and effective-date mechanics
Multiple paragraphs authorize the employer and employee shares to be increased or decreased to maintain the 50/50 split when actuarial valuations show the total normal cost changing by more than 0.5 percentage points. Those adjustments typically begin on set dates (e.g., July 1 of a fiscal year) or the first pay period following ratification, and no single-year adjustment in either share may exceed 0.5%. The statute therefore combines an automatic, valuation-linked mechanism with limits to avoid abrupt contribution swings.
Temporary suspension windows for employee or employer contributions
Several subsections suspend either employee or employer contributions for specified fiscal years. Commonly, employee contributions for the 2020–21 fiscal year are suspended (employer payments generally continue); in several units the employer contribution is suspended in later fiscal years (notably 2025–26 and 2026–27 for Unit 6). These suspensions are explicit and time-limited, producing temporary departures from the statutory 50/50 objective.
Coverage, fund rules, and MOU primacy with funding caveat
Subdivision (c) clarifies that the section applies to employees eligible for health benefits, including permanent intermittent employees. Subdivision (d) requires that contributions be deposited into the Annuitants’ Health Care Coverage Fund and declares them nonrefundable. Subdivision (e) states that if a memorandum of understanding (MOU) conflicts with the statute, the MOU controls—except where the MOU’s terms would require the expenditure of funds, which would need Budget Act approval before becoming effective.
Excepted employees and Director authority
Subdivision (f) allows the Director of the Department of Human Resources to set the total employee contribution as a percentage of pensionable compensation for employees related to a bargaining unit but excepted from the statutory definition of 'state employee.' Subdivision (g) extends similar authority to the Director to set contribution percentages for state employees and officers not related to a bargaining unit, with a goal of achieving the 50/50 split by July 1, 2020. These clauses vest administrative discretion to bring non‑bargained categories into parity with bargained prefunding.
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 state retirees and annuitants — contributions deposited into a dedicated fund improve the likelihood that prefunded OPEB will be available to pay retiree health benefits.
- State fiscal managers and actuaries — a statutory prefunding framework reduces reliance on implicit liabilities and gives budget planners clearer actuarial triggers for future contributions.
- Bargaining units that negotiated ratification triggers — the requirement that some changes take effect following ratification gives labor parties leverage to shape timing and implementation details in MOUs.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employees in covered bargaining units — the bill raises employee payroll contributions by multiple percentage points (up to 4.4% in some units) or locks in phased increases, except during explicitly suspended pay periods.
- The State as employer — the state must match employee contributions and faces scheduled or actuarially driven increases; although some employer contributions are suspended in certain years, long-term employer costs are likely higher without suspensions.
- Payroll and benefits administrators — the statute’s numerous effective-date triggers, suspensions, ratification dependencies, and unit-specific schedules increase administrative complexity and implementation cost.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between securing retiree health benefits through disciplined prefunding (which lowers long‑term fiscal risk) and the political and budgetary reality of imposing recurring payroll contributions on current employees and the state budget; the statute mixes firm prefunding goals with temporary suspensions and administrative discretion, producing trade‑offs between intertemporal fairness, budget relief, and durable benefit funding.
The bill threads a narrow path between fiscal sustainability and affordability, and that creates practical tensions. The valuation‑trigger mechanism (adjust when total normal cost shifts by more than 0.5%) sounds automatic, but it depends on the timing, assumptions, and methodology of actuarial valuations; small changes in assumptions could repeatedly trigger adjustments or be used to justify annual increases up to the 0.5% cap.
The staggered effective dates and the frequent requirement that changes wait until the first pay period following ratification or a specified calendar date create implementation lags that make the effective contribution path sensitive to labor negotiations and payroll cycles.
The suspension windows add another layer of complexity. Suspending employee withholdings for 2020–21 but continuing employer payments shifts near‑term cost away from workers for that year only, and suspending employer contributions in later years (while letting employees continue to pay) shifts burdens forward and can leave the fund underprefunded in those periods unless other revenues make up the gap.
The Unit 5 mechanism that redirects statutory salary increases into OPEB successfully channels a revenue source into prefunding, but it also complicates salary comparability and the mechanics of salary surveys under Section 19827. Finally, giving the Director of the Department of Human Resources authority to set contributions for excepted or nonbargained employees creates administrative flexibility but raises questions of parity and transparency across employee categories.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.