John Crankham, the committee analyst, briefed the Senate Finance Committee on HB11, the proposed Family Wellness Leave Act and the associated Welcome Child benefit but no committee vote was taken. Crankham described the bill's two parts and said the Family Wellness Leave program would be administered by Workforce Solutions and would cover public and private employers and self‑employed individuals who opt in. "Employees will be eligible for up to 6 weeks of paid family wellness leave in a year," Crankham told the committee, and he said both components would begin on January 1, 2028.

The nut graf: The committee hearing served as an informational review of HB11; senators raised questions about fund solvency, funding sources for the Welcome Child refund, the definitions of eligible family members, and implementation details such as employer opt‑out waivers, but no formal action or amendment was adopted during this meeting.

Committee analysts and members summarized the bill. The family wellness leave portion would allow up to six weeks of paid leave per year, paid at a weekly rate equal to the state minimum wage plus 67% of the employee's average weekly wages above minimum wage, capped at the state's annual mean wage. Workforce Solutions could grant participation waivers to employers with substantially similar plans. The bill would also allow self‑employed individuals and Native American tribes that elect coverage to participate. Covered leave types would include bonding with a newborn or foster child, medical leave for a serious medical condition, qualifying exigency related to active military duty, bereavement, and safe leave for victims of domestic violence, stalking or sexual assault; Workforce Solutions would set documentation requirements.

The Welcome Child benefit would include a refundable payment of $3,000 per month for three months (total $9,000) per child and up to 12 weeks of unpaid "welcome child" leave for each parent; the Senate Tax Committee amendment added that the $3,000 monthly payment may be split evenly between two parents. Crankham noted the bill caps total leave under both programs at 12 weeks per year.

Members pressed analysts on funding and solvency. Crankham said HB2 includes a startup appropriation the analyst identified as $35,000,000 for program startup; he also noted earlier estimates and related analyses that suggested startup costs could be higher (the briefing referenced an estimated $49 million startup figure in analysis). He said the Family Wellness Leave Fund would be funded by premiums, with a participant employee contribution of about 0.2% of wages and an employer contribution of about 0.15% (both slated to begin in July 2027 per the current draft). The Welcome Child Fund, which would pay the refunds, had no dedicated revenue source in the bill and would likely require future legislative appropriations from the general fund unless a lawful alternative is specified.

Analysts and members flagged several implementation issues: the actuarial uncertainty about uptake rates (the Legislative Finance Committee materials show wide variability across states), the risk that the fund could become insolvent without premium adjustments or legislative supplemental appropriations, ambiguity about what qualifies as a "substantially similar" employer leave plan for waiver purposes, and potentially broad or subjective definitions of "family member" and allowable documentation for safe leave. Crankham observed a technical design choice: the bill calculates leave using the annual mean wage (which is higher than the median) and could therefore yield larger benefit amounts for higher‑income workers.

Several senators asked for follow‑up materials before further consideration, including: a grid showing startup versus ongoing funding sources for each program component; scenarios/case studies showing impacts on small, medium and large employers; three beneficiary profiles showing typical household financial effects; comparisons with three other states that have implemented similar programs (uptake, solvency, timelines); and an actuarial implementation timeline and premium‑recalculation schedule. Senators also asked staff to clarify residency and employment thresholds for eligibility (Crankham said most paid benefits require six months of contributions during a prior 12‑month period but said he would verify the precise language for each component), and to analyze tax/reporting implications raised by ARPA/IRS guidance about nonwage payments.

Ending: The committee treated the discussion as an informational briefing and did not take a vote on HB11. The chair and staff said they will return with additional materials and updated fiscal analysis, including actuarial work and comparisons with other states, at a later meeting when sponsors and additional agency staff can be present.