Transcript Highlights:

• This budget represents a negotiated compromise between House and Senate priorities while continuing to
• This budget represents a negotiated compromise between House and Senate, priorities while continuing
• I enjoyed getting to know everyone's priorities.
• But it's been a priority of this Senate and of the House to get the nursing homes back to where they
• You know, obviously I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know, you know, what will be priorities in

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This budget represents a negotiated compromise between House and Senate priorities while continuing to
• This budget represents a negotiated compromise between House and Senate, priorities while continuing
• I enjoyed getting to know everyone's priorities.
• But it's been a priority of this Senate and of the House to get the nursing homes back to where they
• Obviously, I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know what will be priorities in the future.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we just want to work together to ensure that both sides are a priority for the state.
• Homelessness, or ending homelessness, is really a top state priority also, and in order to do that we
• <00:03:30.879> sides<00:03:31.360> are<00:03:31.519> a<00:03:31.680> priority
• ensure that both sides are a priority ensure that both sides are a priority for<00:03:32.319>
• also and in order to do that we priority also and in order to do that we need<00:03:40.080> to

Bills: SB2060, SB2063, SB2062, SB2069, SB2070

Keywords: rental housing revolving fund, HHFDC, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation, mixed-income housing, mixed-income rental project, affordable housing, low-income housing, housing finance, housing development, preservation, rehabilitation, pre-development, construction financing, equity investment, credit enhancement, collateral, gap financing, area median income, AMI, perpetual affordability

Summary: The committee heard five housing measures, with the chair announcing that SB 2060, SB 2063, SB 2062, and SB 2069 were works in progress and that decision-making would be deferred to February 3. SB 2060 would allow HHFDC, with Finance approval, to transfer money within the rental housing revolving fund and its subaccounts without further legislative authorization, including a transfer to the mixed-income subaccount for FY 2026-2027. HHFDC and other supporters said the change would give the agency more flexibility to move projects forward, while Catholic Charities Hawaii and a testifier from Roars and Cares supported the bill but warned that shifting money away from lower-income housing could weaken efforts to serve households under 80% of area median income and people at risk of homelessness. HHFDC said the fund’s uncommitted balance was about $100 million and that demand exceeded available resources. SB 2063 would revise the mixed-income subaccount by changing project priorities, adding new criteria, allowing transfers within the subaccount without legislative approval, and directing conveyance tax revenues into the subaccount. HHFDC, OPSD, LURF, Hawaii Appleseed, Housing Hawaii’s Future, Stanford Carr Development, and Roars and Cares supported the measure, while Catholic Charities urged the committee to keep rental and for-sale housing policy separate and to use other mechanisms for homeownership. Catholic Charities said the rental housing revolving fund should remain focused on rentals, and that for-sale initiatives should be addressed separately. The chair indicated an intent to defer the bill for further edits. SB 2062 would make the dwelling unit revolving fund equity pilot a permanent HHFDC program, allowing the agency to buy equity in for-sale developments to lower initial purchase prices and require repayment through shared appreciation. HHFDC said the pilot had been successful, with 83 units committed and $7.6 million of the $10 million program cap already committed, and said permanence would let the agency pair the program with DERF loans earlier in project financing. The chair said SB 2069 would be used as the vehicle for amendments to the DERF equity program and related changes. SB 2069 would authorize HHFDC to use existing dwelling unit revolving fund balances for the equity pilot; it drew support from HHFDC and several housing organizations. SB 2070 would create a permanently affordable for-sale housing program by replacing the current 10-year buyback restriction with a resale price cap tied to an appreciation index, which HHFDC said would preserve affordability while allowing owners to build equity. In questioning, senators pressed HHFDC on whether the bill was necessary, whether it would remove first-time homebuyer and other ownership restrictions, and whether the new program was truly “permanently affordable” if not tied to AMI. HHFDC said the current statutory restrictions limit flexibility, that the proposal would expand access to local residents, and that the price cap would be based on about 4.5% annual appreciation. Supporters said the approach would help buyers move up the housing ladder, while some senators expressed concern that it could open the program to owners of multiple properties and that the committee should see sales-velocity data on existing restricted units before proceeding.

Transcript Highlights:

• Affordability has been a huge issue for Californians today, as well as a priority for the Legislature
• And the type of policy priorities we're trying to hit.
• And the type of policy priorities we're trying to hit.
• And that fits into just an overall state priorities of addressing the crisis.
• You know, and I do think state priority is really to unlock land where possible.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Housing Finance and Affordability held its first hearing of 2025 to examine California’s housing finance system, with opening remarks emphasizing the state’s severe housing shortage, high costs, and the need for practical recommendations to the Legislature and Governor. Co-chairs described the committee as an educational and problem-solving forum focused on financing housing production, first-time homeownership, mixed-income developments, and affordability across the income spectrum. Witnesses from state agencies and the development sector were invited to explain how housing is financed and where the system is breaking down. Panelists from the California Housing Partnership, the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency, the Tax Credit Allocation Committee/State Treasurer’s Office, CalHFA, and Related outlined the “capital stack” used to finance affordable housing, stressing that projects typically rely on multiple public and private sources, including federal and state low-income housing tax credits, tax-exempt bonds, state subsidies, local funds, and rental income. Speakers noted that affordable housing rents generally cannot support full project costs without public subsidy, and that recent federal changes—especially the expansion of the 4% and 9% tax credit programs and the reduction of the bond financing threshold for 4% credits—should allow California to finance substantially more units. CalHFA also described its homeownership programs, including My Home, Dream For All, and disaster-related mortgage assistance, as well as its multifamily lending and bond issuance programs. Several witnesses and committee members emphasized that the system remains too complex, too slow, and underfunded. They pointed to the need for more state funding, a housing bond, a permanent funding source, and better coordination among agencies, while also citing recent streamlining efforts such as AB 434’s SuperNOFA, AB 519’s one-stop-shop working group, and the planned California Housing and Homeless Agency reorganization. Members raised concerns about equity, access, missing-middle housing, gender and racial disparities, and whether current programs adequately serve extremely low-income households and those at risk of homelessness. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing; the discussion ended with committee members and witnesses agreeing that both funding and administrative reform are needed to increase production and improve affordability.

Transcript Highlights:

• We've identified pinch points and helped to develop priority areas.
• And we work jointly on deciding which are the highest priority areas for treatment.
• I promise you that I'm seeing it, and that is one of my priorities is making sure that we're thinning
• And there's other priorities that are economically driven that sort of drown out.
• was that one of your priorities?

Transcript Highlights:

• And your leadership ensured that every article of this budget reflects the values and priorities of our
• This budget turns our promises into action and gives lasting weight to our priorities.
• Despite these new funding demands, we sought the balance to balance the core priorities of the Senate
• And more importantly, it shows where the priority is.
• Clearly a top priority for Texas. Yes, and we'll continue to be so.

Summary: The Senate opened with an invocation and then took up several conference committee matters and resolutions. It granted the House request for a conference committee on House Bill 46 and adopted a conference report on Senate Bill 37, which was described as higher education governance reform, including stronger board authority, changes to faculty senates, general education requirements, and a new ombudsman office. Senators also adopted a large package of resolutions and HCRs by voice vote. A major focus was Senate Bill 12, the “Parental Bill of Rights,” whose conference report was adopted after extended questioning. The bill was described as giving parents more access to school materials and grievance procedures, requiring parental consent for student clubs, and restricting school district employees from assisting with social transitioning or related gender-identity instruction. Senators raised concerns about effects on students already socially transitioned and on parental rights in medical or psychological decisions; the author said the House language was retained in key areas and that districts would need policies and parent notification. The report passed 20-11. The Senate then adopted a resolution allowing the conference committee on Senate Bill 1, the state budget for fiscal years 2026-2027, to go outside the bounds, and later adopted the budget conference report. Senators highlighted major funding for public education, property tax relief, public safety, health and human services, child care, water and transportation infrastructure, and the Texas Energy Fund. The budget discussion also covered higher education, mental health facilities, community attendant wages, rural hospitals, DFPS case management, child care assistance, and a study rider on TRS. The report passed unanimously, 30-0. Finally, the Senate suspended rules to take up Senate Bill 8 and adopted its conference report. The bill requires counties with jails or jail contracts to participate in the federal 287(g) immigration enforcement program, with sheriffs choosing among available models and counties receiving tiered grants to help cover costs. Supporters framed it as a public safety measure targeting criminal illegal aliens, while opponents questioned whether it would divert local resources and increase fear in immigrant communities. The report was adopted after debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• extensions, gives projects priority extensions, gives projects priority within<00:30:46.880>
• in statute a definition of a priority in statute a definition of a priority housing<00:33:12.559
• Um it's just a way could set priorities.
• Uh but I I uh priority to new projects.
• asked what is the definition of priority asked what is the definition of priority housing<00:39:

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There was a push, but we kind of sidestepped it given the priorities in Texas.
• To me, that ought to be a priority if we have cartel leaders.
• This is a priority for us.
• But the public safety is the primary priority. Yes.
• They have a very difficult job, and their safety is a priority.

Bills: SB1

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Summary: The committee heard a Legislative Budget Board presentation and then testimony from the Department of Public Safety on the Article 5 public safety budget. LBB said DPS’s 2026-27 recommendation totals $3.7 billion, down from the prior base, while FTEs rise by 856.7. Major items included increased funding for driver license services and customer support, new trooper funding and recruit schools, crime lab operations, border security, and reductions tied to one-time facility, vehicle, and aircraft spending. The committee also discussed new riders, including one to lapse unused trooper funds and require reporting after recruit schools. Members focused heavily on driver license operations, questioning why prior staffing increases and a prior efficiency study had not solved long wait times, high call abandonment, and appointment delays. DPS and LBB said the agency receives about 22,000 calls per day, answers only about 9 percent, and is seeking more staff plus technology upgrades such as automation, kiosks, and better online processing. Senators also raised concerns about rural access, REAL ID document requirements, and whether the department should rethink its processes rather than simply add employees. DPS leadership then described needs for the Williamson County training academy, additional troopers, Capitol and Alamo security, border operations, aircraft and vehicle replacement, and regional headquarters in El Paso and San Antonio. Members asked about Operation Lone Star costs, overtime, pursuit safety, border crime, oilfield theft, and sexual assault kit and toxicology backlogs. DPS said border deployments remain focused on criminal threats, that overtime is partly driven by deployments and staffing shortages, and that the sexual assault kit backlog is down to 118 cases with a goal of zero by April. The committee later recessed and began the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission budget presentation, where LBB outlined a $115.1 million recommendation and noted ongoing costs for the AIMS technology project.

Transcript Highlights:

• will have priority status, and it doesn't change anything related to that.
• It does not take into account the current priority students when estimating this bill.
• will have priority status, and it does not change anything related to that.
• students will have priority priority students will have priority status<05:27:08.560> and<05:
• what we already know priority what we already know priority enrollments<05:28:29.760> push

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on House Bill 1571, which would direct the Department of Education to review and revise statewide academic standards and curriculum and make an appropriation. Representative Kristen Noble, the sponsor, said the bill is intended to update outdated standards, especially in math, and to have the department create a list of high-quality curriculum and materials aligned to the revised standards. She noted she would likely amend the bill to change a requirement that districts “shall” select from the list to “may,” and said a misplaced crossed-out section would need to be restored and moved by amendment. She also said assessments would need to be updated to match any new standards. Testimony from Marie Banfield strongly supported the bill and the move away from a mandate, arguing that current standards are outdated and that Common Core and related standards have not improved student outcomes. She criticized the math standards for emphasizing multiple strategies and written explanations over computation, and said stronger standards would better support students, including those with learning or communication challenges. She also argued that New Hampshire should follow examples such as Massachusetts, which she said used rigorous standards successfully. Nate Green of the Department of Education did not take a position on the bill but explained that the bill would affect statewide academic standards, state assessments, and potentially federal compliance. He distinguished academic standards from minimum standards in statute, said any standards revision would require work with content experts, State Board approval, and then a corresponding assessment update that could take about two years. He estimated assessment development costs could range from about $200,000 to $500,000 for minor revisions and $1 million to $2 million for a wholesale new set of standards. He also said the bill would apply to public and charter public schools, not private or homeschool students, and that the department does not currently provide a statewide list of curriculum materials because curriculum decisions have historically been local.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'd like to quickly walk through some examples now related to the other strategic priorities.
• I'd like to quickly walk through some examples now related to the other strategic priorities.
• I'd like to quickly walk through some examples now related to the other strategic priorities.
• I'd like to quickly walk through some examples now related to the other strategic priorities.
• I'd like to quickly walk through some examples now related to the other strategic priorities.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• honestly H housing was not a priority honestly H housing was not a priority area<00:14:22.600>
• We appreciate that this has been a priority over the years.
• But I will note that as we sort of have begun thinking about our priorities for next year, continuing
• to invest in that program has remained at the top of my priorities because it is decades and decades
• There are a few priorities that I want to highlight.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee on Housing and Homelessness Prevention heard informational presentations from Housing First Minnesota and the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities on the state of housing in Minnesota. Mark Foster of Housing First Minnesota said the state has a severe housing shortage, with demand outpacing supply since the 2007-09 housing crash, and argued that Minnesota is nearly 100,000 units short of a healthy market. He said new homes are increasingly unaffordable, citing a median new single-family price above $530,000 and declining affordability in the Twin Cities metro, and he urged lawmakers to remove exclusionary zoning and other regulatory barriers that he said make starter homes and smaller-lot housing difficult or illegal to build in many growing cities. He also highlighted the group’s Housing for Heroes projects, including transitional housing for veterans and other crisis housing projects around the state. Members asked Foster about starter-home examples and his view that the committee’s top priority should be reforming residential development approvals. He said most new housing is negotiated through planned unit developments rather than built under base zoning, which he argued adds cost and reduces supply. The committee then heard from Elizabeth Wael of the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, who said housing challenges outside the metro are different but equally serious. She said many Greater Minnesota cities face a lack of developers, inadequate infrastructure such as roads and utilities, and gaps in the housing continuum, especially starter workforce housing and senior housing. She thanked the committee for 2023 housing funding and said cities are contributing their own resources, updating zoning, reducing parking requirements, allowing ADUs, and partnering with developers and nonprofits. Wael also urged faster rollout of the Greater Minnesota infrastructure grant program and said the state should consider changes to the housing tax credit and housing TIF rules to make them easier to use. In response, senators said they shared frustration with the slow implementation of the infrastructure program and emphasized the need for state investment and locally tailored zoning reforms. No bills were heard and no votes were taken; the meeting was informational and focused on stakeholder testimony and committee discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• core habitat, coastal adaptation areas, FEMA flood zones, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species priority
• advised myself and the undersecretary, Secretary Deperman, and others in the administration on priorities
• for land conservation, which particular data to account for when acquiring over the states, what priorities
• recommend to the leadership modifications in our land acquisition approach to reflect changes in the priorities
• recommend to the leadership modifications in our land acquisition approach to reflect changes in the priorities

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight held an oversight hearing on draft regulations implementing Article 97 of the Massachusetts Constitution under Chapter 274 of the Acts of 2022, the Open Space Act. Chairs Cabral and Collins framed the hearing as a review of how the new process for dispositions or changes in use of Article 97 land would work, including public notice, environmental justice protections, replacement land, appraisals, and the role of the legislature. Under Secretary Stephanie Cooper and Commissioner Adam Bakke testified for EEA/DCAM, followed later by Deputy Inspector General O’Neill and Deputy Inspector General Giles on appraisal review. Much of the discussion focused on how the draft regulations would operate in practice. EEA said the regulations would require advance public notice, define “comparable location” for replacement land, and allow the Secretary to make findings on whether an action would adversely affect environmental justice communities. Members pressed for longer public comment periods, clearer notice to local officials, more frequent updates to the site evaluation tool, and a clearer definition of terms such as “limited duration” for permits and licenses. EEA said the regulations are intended to standardize a process that has been handled through policy and case-by-case review, and that the legislature still retains the final authority to approve any Article 97 disposition. Committee members also questioned whether the draft rules shift too much discretion to the Secretary and whether the proposed “proponent” process could allow private entities to drive Article 97 actions. EEA responded that non-public proponents would still need municipal support and legislative sponsorship, and that the regulations do not create a new avenue to bypass the existing home rule and legislative process. Members raised concerns about the current policy’s unanimous-vote requirements for municipal commissions, the proposed waiver provisions, whether MEPA applies, and the lack of explicit enforcement or penalty language in the act or regulations. EEA and DCAM said the act does not provide an enforcement mechanism and that disputes would generally be handled through the courts or the Attorney General. The Inspector General’s office explained its role in reviewing appraisals for special legislation, including Article 97 matters, to ensure compliance with USPAP standards and to forward its review to DCAM. The hearing did not include any votes or formal committee action; members indicated that the committee may later issue recommendations to the executive agencies based on the testimony and questions raised.

Transcript Highlights:

• Schools rely on flexibility of election timing to respond to immediate priorities like building repairs
• Schools rely on flexibility of election timing to respond to immediate priorities like building repairs
• Schools rely on flexibility of election timing to respond to immediate priorities like building repairs
• Schools rely on flexibility of election timing to respond to immediate priorities like building repairs
• . ability of election timing to respond to immediate priorities like building repairs, addressing safety

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Children and Families heard public testimony on Senate Bill 1002, which would move St. Charles County school board elections and school levy/bond questions to the November general election, extend school board terms to four years, and allow candidates to voluntarily list party affiliation. The bill sponsor argued the change would increase turnout, broaden parent and taxpayer participation, and better align school board decisions with the broader electorate. Supporters echoed those points, saying April elections have low turnout, campaigning is difficult in winter, and November voting would give more residents a voice. Opponents, including school board members, parents, and the Missouri School Boards’ Association, argued the bill unnecessarily singles out St. Charles County, could politicize school board races, and might bury local issues on crowded November ballots. Several witnesses said school boards should remain nonpartisan and warned that four-year terms and the loss of staggered elections could reduce continuity and institutional knowledge. Others said limiting levy and bond questions to November could delay urgent district needs and reduce local flexibility. Some supporters and opponents also debated whether the bill should be statewide rather than county-specific. After testimony, the committee moved into executive session and voted Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 1002 “do pass” by a vote of 10 aye, 5 no, and 1 present. The committee also voted Senate Substitute for Senate Bill 1135 “do pass” by the same 10 aye, 5 no, and 1 present margin.

Transcript Highlights:

• Although my top priority is, and has always been, banning assault weapons, whatever it takes to keep
• Although my top priority<00:09:50.320> is<00:09:50.520> and<00:09:50.600> has<00
• :09:50.800> always<00:09:51.080> been priority is and has always been priority is and has
• Is this a priority, I guess, for the Senate as much as it would be for the House DFL?
• >> Certainly a priority for the Senate and for the Senate Democrats, yes.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: Senate leaders and bill authors held a post-debate press availability after completing floor debate and passage of a comprehensive gun violence package developed in response to the Annunciation school shooting and other recent violence. They described the package as combining mental health funding, school safety aid, and gun restrictions, including an assault-weapons ban, and said it reflected months of work with families, advocates, law enforcement groups, and members from both parties. They emphasized that the approach was intended to address both access to firearms and the people involved in violence, along with prevention, intervention, and consequences. The speakers said the bill reached 34 Senate votes after extensive conversations with colleagues, including some who had personal connections to Annunciation or concerns about their districts. They framed the vote as historic and said it showed Minnesotans where lawmakers stand. They also urged the House to take up the measure, warning that avoiding a vote would signal that politics were being placed ahead of public safety. They said they would continue lobbying House members and expected negotiations with House and gubernatorial leaders in the coming weeks. Mike Moyski, a family member of an Annunciation victim, praised the Senate action as meaningful and lasting for children and communities, while also criticizing a floor speech he said repeated the shooter’s name and platformed the attacker. In response to questions, senators said they remained open to further talks with House Republicans and Democrats, but stressed that the families wanted a comprehensive package. They said if the House sends over separate school safety legislation, the chambers would conference the bills to resolve differences.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am going to make my pitch that I think collectively all of us together, a top priority is to get the
• <00:06:26.319> to<00:06:26.479> get<00:06:26.560> the us together a top priority
• is to get the us together a top priority is to get the bonding<00:06:27.039> bill<00:06:27.280
• So I think that's going to be our priority, but I think you will see limited expenditures.
• I mean, it seems like Republicans and Democrats both think that that should be a priority, but that it

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The governor discussed Minnesota’s budget outlook ahead of a supplemental budget release next month, saying the state remains financially strong but should be cautious because of federal uncertainty and a structural imbalance in spending. He said the administration’s approach will be measured, with limited new spending and possibly modest revenue measures, while prioritizing a bonding bill and maintaining the state’s AAA bond rating, reserves, and middle-class tax cuts. He also praised the 2023 legislative session and bipartisan cooperation as the basis for the state’s current position. A major topic was spending growth in special education and the broader human services system. The governor said special education is a fundamental service the state is legally and morally obligated to provide, but costs need to be managed more efficiently. He pointed to legacy IT systems in the Department of Human Services and county service delivery as expensive, antiquated, and error-prone, and said the state needs a multi-year modernization plan and continued reorganization. He argued that reforms such as prepayment verification and other fraud controls should reduce costs without cutting services. The governor also addressed federal actions affecting Medicaid and other programs, sharply criticizing efforts to withhold funds and claims of widespread fraud. He said Minnesota’s Medicaid error rate is lower than the national average and argued that the federal government’s approach would harm children, pregnant women, and seniors without improving fraud prevention. He also said the state’s gun violence prevention and fraud-fighting packages are expected to be relatively close to budget neutral. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken in the meeting, which was primarily a press availability and Q&A.

Transcript Highlights:

• But those kids who don't, those kids in the 121 failing schools that are priority schools that we need
• But those kids who don't, those kids in the 121 failing schools that are priority schools that we need
• But those kids who don't, those kids in the 121 failing schools that are priority schools that we need
• 00:13:59.519> schools<00:14:00.320> that<00:14:00.639> are<00:14:00.800> priority
• failing schools that are priority failing schools that are priority schools<00:14:01.680> that

Bills: HB329, SB5, HB329, SB5, HB43, HB75, HB396

Keywords: military installations, tall structures, local government, construction approval, wind energy facilities, archives, history, board of trustees, vacancies, government control, computer science, education reform, digital literacy, high school graduation, teacher training, education, public schools, constitution amendment, national anthem, weekly broadcast

Transcript Highlights:

• that we are trying to take on is consistent with not just our mission, but Governor Ferguson's priorities
• as many gaps in the care we provide as possible, and it meshes really well with the governor's priorities
• Of course, our funding is limited and our priorities are many, but we're really hopeful that this website
• Of course, our funding is limited and our priorities are many.
• Of course, our funding is limited and our priorities are many, but we're really hopeful that this website

Summary: The committee heard a lengthy update on Washington child welfare from Casey Family Programs and DCYF. Dr. David Sanders said Washington has sharply reduced out-of-home care and increased kinship placements, but he flagged concerns about low screening-in rates, long stays in foster care for many children, and a recent rise in repeat maltreatment and child fatalities, especially among infants. He urged more focus on infants and young children, better coordination among child protection, health care, and law enforcement, and more proactive review and investigation practices. Members asked for disaggregated data on children lingering in care, fatalities, and causes such as fentanyl exposure. DCYF said it has increased relative placements and guardianships, but also reported a concerning rise in 2025 critical incidents, mostly near-fatalities involving children age three and under, many opioid-related. The department described responses including safe child consults for opioid cases, more training, hotspot analysis, and proposed investments in peer support, public health nurses, community referrals, and an updated safety framework. Members also discussed whether a broader commission on child abuse prevention would be useful, and DCYF said it was open to that idea. The committee then received a DSHS reorganization update from Secretary Angela Ramirez, who described the “Reimagined” plan to consolidate four administrations into three new ones, with the stated goals of reducing silos, improving customer experience, and making transitions between services smoother. She said the agency is seeking statutory changes and CMS approval to align the new structure, and members asked about preparing for federal HR1 impacts, especially SNAP. Ramirez said DSHS is monitoring those impacts closely and emphasized the need for accurate data and cross-agency coordination. Finally, DSHS’s Behavioral Health and Habilitation Administration updated the committee on residential habilitation centers and implementation of Substitute Senate Bill 5393, which phases out Rainier School by June 30, 2027 and limits new admissions. Officials reported current census and staffing levels at the state’s RHCs, said Rainier has had some residents transition to supported living or adult family homes, and explained that emergency and permanent rulemaking was needed to implement the law. They also said Rainier was recently cited by federal surveyors for not meeting the active treatment requirement for two residents, and that the facility has 90 days to return to compliance before possible payment penalties or further remedies. Members pressed for details on the citation, the meaning of active treatment, the assessment process for admissions, and whether Rainier could be repurposed for other services; DSHS said it is working on corrective action and will follow up in writing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we kind of have a priority of considerations that really were developed from the legislative intent
• So we kind of have a priority of considerations that really were developed from the legislative intent
• Because if you're trying to move priorities forward across the whole state simultaneously, and we're
• And so, you know, we feel as though it's part of our job to move those priorities forward simultaneously
• right-sized facilities that are consistently completed on time, on budget, with safety as our top priority

Summary: The Transportation Committee met to consider two bills and then held a lengthy discussion on Florida airport infrastructure. SB 246, presented by Senator Rodriguez on behalf of Senator Gruters, would authorize a UFC specialty license plate, with proceeds supporting the UFC Foundation’s charitable work. A UFC Foundation representative described community beneficiaries and said the plate would help raise funds for local charities. With no questions or debate, the committee voted SB 246 favorably. The committee also took up SPB 7012, a Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles public-records exemption bill that would remove the October 1, 2026 repeal date for certain active investigatory records. Senator Avila moved to submit it as a committee bill, there was no objection, and it was reported favorably as a committee bill. The remainder of the meeting focused on the Comprehensive Airport Infrastructure Program. FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue outlined Florida’s aviation system, the department’s airport funding programs, and the state’s role as a financial partner in safety, capacity, preservation, and economic development projects. He said Florida has 128 public-use airports, 21 commercial-service airports, and four large-hub airports, and noted that airport funding is largely supported by gas-tax-related revenues, with additional support from documentary stamp revenue and other fees. He also discussed the new airport infrastructure planning requirements created last session and said all required airports had submitted plans. Committee members asked about the loss of aviation fuel tax revenue, workforce development, project timelines, and how FDOT prioritizes funding, with Perdue emphasizing safety, preservation, capacity, economic return, and matching funds. A panel from Miami, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, and Tampa international airports then described major capital programs, passenger growth, and funding needs. The airports highlighted terminal expansions, parking, baggage systems, airfield rehabilitation, people movers, and other modernization projects, along with the importance of maintaining aging facilities while accommodating growth. They said FDOT and FAA grants are helpful but increasingly insufficient for runway and taxiway costs, and several panelists said passenger facility charges and other revenue tools are important to future self-sufficiency. Members also asked about workforce shortages, small-business participation, landing-fee negotiations, and non-aeronautical revenue. The panel said workforce challenges are most acute in trades and maintenance, small-business programs are active at each airport, and landing fees are negotiated with airlines to keep airports competitive while funding needed improvements.

Transcript Highlights:

• You all have made it a priority to see more of that funding being used to actively serve students, and
• Increasing math outcomes is also a priority for you all, and so you'll hear tomorrow about our budget
• our current accountability structures and also drawing on a few key metrics that align with your priorities
• This will be helpful to us in monitoring any changes in local priorities over the coming years.
• Certainly, the committees have multiple priorities, and I think where the stars align and there's common

Transcript Highlights:

• So it is a priority of the administration.
• So far, we've received... ...are open or closed, so it is a priority of the administration.
• necessary to support our rural communities across the state of Washington and in alignment with CMS priorities
• So that's why the application related to rural does set out specific priorities of rural health transformation
• It really looks forward to the meetings and the convenings related to CMS and the priorities that they

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a work session to review how H.R. 1 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) could affect Washington’s Medicaid, long-term care, developmental disabilities, and food assistance programs, with a focus on implementation challenges, fiscal impacts, and likely coverage losses. Staff and agency officials explained Washington’s Medicaid financing structure, eligibility categories, caseload trends, and the role of the Health Care Authority and DSHS in administering Apple Health and related services. They also described how Medicaid expansion increased access to behavioral health services and how H.R. 1’s provisions are expected to affect the expansion population most directly. Health Care Authority and DSHS officials outlined several major H.R. 1 changes: new work and community engagement requirements for the Medicaid expansion population, six-month redeterminations instead of annual renewals, changes to immigrant eligibility, limits on provider taxes and state-directed payments, new cost-sharing requirements, reduced retroactive coverage, and changes affecting long-term care eligibility. They said Washington is still awaiting federal guidance on many details, but estimated that about 620,000 Apple Health expansion enrollees could be subject to work requirements, that roughly 30,000 immigrants could lose Medicaid eligibility under the new definition of qualified alien, and that some long-term care and developmental disability clients could be indirectly affected. Officials also said the state is working with other agencies to build shared verification systems and may seek a delay waiver, though they do not expect broad federal flexibility. The committee also heard that H.R. 1 immediately blocks Medicaid reimbursement for Planned Parenthood services for one year, with the state planning to backfill about $11 million to preserve access. In addition, officials warned that the law could reduce federal Medicaid revenue by billions over time and strain hospitals and emergency rooms as more people become uninsured. They noted that Washington’s rural health transformation grant application is due November 5 and could bring some funding, but not to offset coverage losses. No votes were taken; the session was informational only. The committee then heard a separate presentation on food assistance, where staff and DSHS described H.R. 1’s SNAP changes, including expanded work requirements, immigrant eligibility restrictions, higher state administrative costs, and a possible future state share of benefit costs tied to payment error rates. DSHS estimated a four-year fiscal impact of about $750 million for food assistance changes and said the state is working on system and policy changes across agencies before the new requirements take effect.