Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ports Pensions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ports tell committee HB 2179 would prevent retroactive dual‑coverage and large liabilities
Summary
House Bill 2179 would create a narrow exemption from PERS for port employees who participated in federal Railroad Retirement or union‑sponsored pension plans; ports warned of potential retroactive payroll liabilities and urged the committee to adopt the technical fix to avoid administrative and financial harm.
David Pringle, committee staff, told lawmakers that House Bill 2179 would create a narrow, retroactive exemption from Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) membership for port‑district employees who participated in federal Railroad Retirement or union‑sponsored defined‑benefit plans during periods when the port employer made contributions to those plans.
Pringle said audits in 2024–25 flagged several port employees who were not enrolled in PERS but instead participated in other pension plans, and that initial data put the affected universe in the dozens (DRS audit identified roughly 50 employees; OFM suggested that number could be 100–125). DRS estimated it would cost about $18,000 one‑time to adjust administrative rules and systems to administer the exemption.
James Coburn, government relations manager for the Washington Public Ports Association, testified in support and described the change as a clarification that affects a very small number of employees: "This bill simply provides that clarity," he said.
Jessica Garza of the Port of Pend Oreille said her port's railroad division is required to participate in the Federal Railroad Retirement System and warned of large retroactive liabilities if employees were enrolled in PERS instead. She said employees could owe up to $18,042 each in retroactive contributions and estimated the port's liability as of Jan. 2, 2026, would exceed $229,000. "We respectfully ask you to support House Bill 2,179," she said, to allow the railroad division to remain covered solely by the railroad retirement system.
Jonathan Eder of the Port of Vancouver described the bill as a "clean fix" that avoids dual‑system conflicts and preserves collectively bargained pension coverage for building‑trades workers.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about scope, retroactivity and legal risk; staff and the agency described the measure as targeted and noted further fiscal details would be provided in follow‑up materials.
No vote was taken during the hearing.
