Transcript Highlights:

• So I want to know about the inflation issue and how the administration looks at what the level of inflation
• When accounting for inflation... ...Great Recession, not adjusting for inflation.
• In addition to funding Chapter 70 at a level that takes into account the real impact of inflation, we
• Have you seen an impact?
• Have you seen an impact?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Transcript Highlights:

• There is no state revenue impact.
• There is no direct impact on state revenues.
• There is no state revenue impact.
• It doesn’t keep up with inflation.
• and its impacts.

Summary: The House Finance Committee heard briefings and public testimony on several bills related to local tax authority and exemptions. HB 2559 would let cities and counties impose an additional 4% lodging/short-term rental excise tax starting in 2027, with revenues dedicated to affordable housing programs and up to 15% for administration. Staff explained existing lodging tax limits and estimated substantial local collections, while the prime sponsor and supporters argued it would give local governments a needed tool to address housing shortages caused in part by short-term rentals. Opponents, including short-term rental owners and hosts, said the tax would hurt tourism communities, reduce supplemental income for owners, and should not single out one lodging segment. The hearing on HB 2559 was suspended and later reopened for additional testimony; no vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 2133, which would make permanent the property tax exemption for multipurpose nonprofit senior citizen centers. Staff said the exemption is currently set to expire in 2028 and that the bill would remove it from the automatic 10-year sunset. The sponsor and a veteran/senior center perspective emphasized that the exemption helps keep senior centers open and supports isolated older adults. A question was raised about whether a broader nonprofit community center with senior-focused space would qualify, and staff said they would follow up. The hearing on HB 2133 was then closed. HB 2135 would increase and extend the adaptive housing sales and use tax remittance for disabled veterans, raising the individual lifetime cap from $2,500 to $5,000, increasing the statewide annual cap, and extending the program’s expiration to 2038. Staff said the fiscal impact would be minimal because use is low, and a veterans coalition representative supported the bill as a way to ensure more federal grant dollars go toward home modifications. The hearing on HB 2135 was closed. The committee spent the most time on HB 2442, an eight-part local government tax and fund-flexibility bill. It would expand uses of existing REET revenues, allow cities to adopt an affordable-housing REET under certain conditions, authorize county public utility taxes with a low-income assistance set-aside, create a new local sales tax for children and family services, broaden housing-related sales tax uses, restructure mental health and veterans property tax levies, extend levy lid lift periods, and allow rental car tax revenues to be used for criminal justice purposes. Supporters from counties, cities, housing groups, and some local officials said the bill would provide needed fiscal flexibility and new tools to address housing, public safety, and service demands. Opponents from utilities, realtors, water and sewer districts, wireless carriers, auto dealers, and tax critics argued the bill would raise regressive costs, especially on housing and utility customers, and that some provisions lacked a sufficient nexus to the original taxes. The hearing on HB 2442 was closed after extensive testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're impacting all states. They're impacting Texas. They're impacting Iowa.
• They're impacting all states. They're impacting Texas. They're impacting Iowa.
• goods, the impact of inflation is exponentially worse for our small-scale local farmers.
• </c><01:41:03.520><c> of</c><01:41:03.679><c> inflation</c><01:41:04.159><c> is</c> goods, the impact
• of inflation is goods, the impact of inflation is exponentially<01:41:05.199><c> worse</c><01:41:05.760

Transcript Highlights:

• But it would... it could have some impact, though, right? You don't know what the impact would be.
• But they're both impacted.
• Inflation, yes. Inflation, no. There's no debate on the $22.7 billion at this point.
• of inflation.
• They are dealing with the impact of inflation, and a majority of districts in the state are operating

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:13:47.120><c> or</c> those are things like inflation or those are things like inflation or unfunded
• </c> there it creates real long-term impacts there it creates real long-term impacts to<00:37:40.280>
• </c> there could also be Tiff District impact there could also be Tiff District impact from<01:06:07.559
• Yeah, so, but no inflators.
• /c><01:29:05.880><c> we're</c><01:29:06.000><c> not</c> inflators no no inflators but we're not inflators

Committee: House Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• And I'll just note that these are not the only measures of inflation.
• You'll see the impact of revenue legislation called out separately.
• Those are areas where budget decisions in that budget impact NGFO receipts by the state.
• But the health care inflation or projected health care inflation is not included.
• Inflation or projected health care inflation is not included in future outlook calculations, or it is

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative-Executive Committee on Budget Transparency and Fiscal Sustainability

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a 3% inflator, a 2% inflator, and a 1% inflator.
• If you don't want to be at the 3% inflator, you can go down to the 1% inflator.
• There's a 3% inflator, a 2% inflator, and a 1% inflator.
• If you don't want to be at the 3% inflator, you can go down to the 1% inflator.
• If you don't want to be at the 3% inflator, you can go down to the 1% inflator.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• Households, of course, the cost of food, there's been significant inflation in the and prices of both
• Did you think the changes in valuations impact the studies at all or were they new findings?
• Are these numbers adjusted for inflation? No, it wouldn't be inflation adjusted.
• So this is population and inflation adjusted, which is super important.
• Plug in all of these things we're doing and know what that impact is going to be.

Committee: House Ways & Means

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's kind of the economic impact impacts on taxpayers.
• think it will really meaningfully impact... ...impacts on spending decisions and resource decisions,
• Both of them will have impacts.
• And I shouldn't assume this, but Economic impacts, and impacts on other elements, as you mentioned.
• of rapid inflation.

Bills: H5006 , H5007

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state tax collection cap law (62F) so the cap would be based on the prior year’s actual collections plus wage-and-salary growth and would include surtax revenue. Committee chairs outlined the hearing process and noted that the measures would need additional signatures to qualify for the 2026 ballot if not enacted by the legislature. The committee’s expert witness, Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, said the income tax proposal would lower the base rate in stages beginning in 2027 and would ultimately reduce state income tax collections by about $5.4 billion annually when fully implemented. He estimated savings would vary by income level, from a few hundred dollars for lower- and middle-income households to about $10,700 for taxpayers at the surtax threshold. He argued the proposal would improve tax competitiveness but would also require major budget adjustments, likely including reserve use, spending cuts, and possibly new revenue measures; he cited prior downturns and said the state’s rainy day fund is stronger than in past recessions, though spending growth and health care costs remain concerns. On the 62F proposal, he said rebasing the cap to prior-year collections would make refunds more likely, with modeled refunds totaling about $7.9 billion without the surtax and $10.1 billion with it over the last decade, and warned it could reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Proponents of both petitions, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, NFIB, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that Massachusetts faces an affordability and competitiveness crisis and that lower taxes would help families, small businesses, job creation, and outmigration. They said the income tax cut would put about $1,300 a year back into the hands of average families, help pass-through businesses reinvest, and improve the state’s ability to compete with lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, presented a model projecting average annual revenue losses of about $680 million during the phase-in and a total net income tax revenue impact of $2 billion to $2.2 billion, while saying long-term revenue growth would be stronger after implementation. The hearing ended with committee questions and a brief dispute over a planned voter testimonial video, which the chairs said was not appropriate for the hearing at that point.

Transcript Highlights:

• How does that impact schools? Yeah.
• Without resetting their levy, how else do they account for inflation?
• I'm subject to inflation, and everybody and all of your constituents are subject to inflation.
• Well, just like taxpayers are able to keep up with inflation.
• Well, just like taxpayers are able to keep up with inflation.

Summary: The House first established a quorum after introductions of special guests, then moved to bills for perfection. House Bill 2016, concerning anti-Semitism in Missouri schools, colleges, and universities, drew extensive debate. The sponsor said the bill would require educational institutions to adopt non-discriminatory policies protecting Jewish students from harassment and intimidation, use the IHRA definition as a guide, and preserve First Amendment rights. A Pulaski County member offered and secured adoption of an amendment clarifying that protected political, religious, and expressive speech would not be reported, cataloged, or used to create records. Supporters said the bill was needed because of rising anti-Semitic incidents and student safety concerns; opponents argued it singled out one group, could chill discussion of Israel and Palestine, and created a reporting hierarchy. The chamber ultimately adopted the amendment and then ordered the bill perfected and printed. House Bill 2384, a housing and building-code measure, was then taken up. The sponsor said it was aimed at reducing housing costs by rolling back energy-code mandates to 2009 standards, setting clearer permitting timelines, and allowing certain multifamily buildings to use a single staircase. Supporters framed it as a response to Missouri’s housing shortage and rising home prices, while opponents criticized the bill as preempting local control, especially in Kansas City and other municipalities that had adopted newer codes. A Pulaski County amendment was adopted to reduce the number of required hard copies of municipal ordinance books when ordinances are available online. After debate over energy efficiency, safety, and local authority, the House moved the previous question, then adopted the committee substitute and ordered the bill perfected and printed. House Bill 1766, dealing with personal property tax and Hancock limitations, was also perfected and printed. The sponsor said the bill would treat personal property tax growth more like real property under Hancock-style limits, arguing that rapid increases in vehicle values had created windfalls for political subdivisions. Members questioned whether the change would reduce local revenue needed for schools and other services, while supporters said it would protect taxpayers and still allow growth. The House then took up House Joint Resolution 154, which would place a Medicaid work requirement in the Missouri Constitution by mirroring federal policy. The sponsor said it would require able-bodied adults ages 19 to 64 to work, volunteer, attend school, or participate in a work program for 80 hours a month to remain eligible. Opponents raised concerns about administrative burden, documentation requirements, and the impact on vulnerable recipients, while supporters argued the measure should be made permanent through the constitution. The transcript cuts off during that debate, before final action on the resolution is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• , inflation, inflation, importantly,<00:38:05.280><c> your</c><00:38:05.560><c> view</c><00:38:06.040
• </c> with and exceed the rate of inflation. with and exceed the rate of inflation.
• </c><00:54:27.480><c> In</c> the rate of effective inflation. In the rate of effective inflation.
• inflation inflation in<01:09:53.680><c> the</c><01:09:53.880><c> in</c><01:09:53.960><c> the</c><01:
• Inflation is a key component outlined. Inflation is a key component of<01:10:09.080><c> that.

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• Rent stabilization of 3% plus inflation, capped at 5% annually.
• impacting existing businesses and workers, especially in the hospitality industry.
• Redevelopment is often constrained and impacts are most acute.
• This is a technical fix with real-world impact.
• A lot of what we found out were impact fees, regulations, permitting, all of these things.

Bills: AB306 , AB750 , AB956 , AB1128 , AB2181

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Keywords: Public Utilities Commission, diversity, geographic representation, regulatory authority, Governor appointments

Summary: The Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee met as a subcommittee and later established quorum to hear five housing-related bills. AB 306 (Schultz) would create a centralized statewide process for resolving disputes over differing local interpretations of the state building code; it drew no testimony in opposition and was ultimately concurred in. AB 750 (Quirk-Silva) would expand HCD’s Portfolio Reinvestment Program to help preserve and rehabilitate challenged affordable housing developments; supporters emphasized the loss of subsidized units and the need to preserve existing stock, and the bill passed unanimously. AB 2181 (Zbur) would limit use of speculative density-bonus assumptions in appraisals for hotel and motel ground leases, with supporters saying it protects workers and prevents inflated valuations; it also passed unanimously. The committee then heard AB 1128 (Marisicci), a gut-and-amend bill that, after Senate amendments, would apply mobile home rent stabilization to 10 mobile home parks in Torrance. Supporters, including the Mobile Home Residents Coalition, said the measure would provide predictable rent increases for seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and working families. Opponents argued it would override local control and discourage investment and new park construction. Members debated the broader policy of rent control versus housing supply, and the bill passed on a 7-4 vote with one not voting. Finally, AB 956 (Quirk-Silva) clarified accessory dwelling unit law by allowing up to two detached ADUs, or one detached ADU plus one JADU, so long as existing size, height, setback, and safety requirements are met. Supporters described it as a modest clarification that would help families add housing on their own property, while one member objected that local agencies should retain more discretion. The bill passed unanimously. At the end of the hearing, members and staff offered extensive praise for Quirk-Silva’s housing work, noting that AB 956 was likely her last bill before the committee, and the committee adjourned after final roll-call votes were completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• How does that impact schools?” “Yeah.
• Without resetting their levy, how else do they account for, say, inflation?
• But political subdivisions don't want to be held to the inflation increases.
• You know, like you and I, we're subject to inflation every year. increases.
• Well, just like taxpayers are able to keep up with inflation.

Summary: The House first established a quorum after several members were absent, then moved into bills for perfection. House Bill 261, dealing with anti-Semitism in public schools and higher education, drew extensive debate. The sponsor described rising anti-Jewish incidents and said the bill would require educational institutions to adopt nondiscriminatory policies, use the IHRA definition as a guide, and treat failures to address harassment as Title VI issues. An amendment from the gentleman from Pulaski was adopted to clarify that protected First Amendment speech, religious expression, and political viewpoints would not be reported or cataloged. Supporters said the bill was needed to protect Jewish students; opponents argued it singled out one group, could chill speech about Israel and Palestine, and created unequal reporting requirements. The House ultimately ordered the bill perfected and printed as amended. The chamber then took up House Bill 2384 on housing affordability and building codes. The sponsor said the bill would lower housing costs by rolling back energy-code mandates to 2009 standards, setting clearer permitting timelines, and allowing certain multifamily buildings to use a single staircase. Supporters argued current codes raise costs, discourage builders, and contribute to Missouri’s housing shortage. Opponents raised concerns about local control, preemption of municipal energy standards, and public safety, especially the single-stair provision; the sponsor responded that the design has been used safely in other states and cities. A Pulaski amendment requiring municipalities with online ordinances to keep only one hard copy available was adopted, and after debate the previous question was moved and approved. The House then adopted the committee substitute and ordered the bill perfected and printed. House Bill 1766, addressing personal property tax, was also perfected and printed. The sponsor said the bill would apply Hancock/CPI-style tax limitations to personal property tax growth, arguing that rapidly rising vehicle values had created a windfall for political subdivisions and unfairly increased taxpayer burdens. Supporters said the bill would slow growth without eliminating it, while opponents argued local governments need revenue to keep up with inflation and that the measure would reduce resources for schools and other services. Finally, the House began consideration of House Joint Resolution 154, which would place into the Missouri Constitution a Medicaid work requirement mirroring federal policy. The sponsor said adults ages 19 to 64 would need to work, volunteer, participate in a work program, or attend school for 80 hours a month to remain eligible, and the discussion began with questions about whether the constitutional change was necessary and how documentation requirements would work.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is to inflate.
• Is to inflate. the easy way out, right? Is to inflate.
• I mean that inflation is a inflation.
• So swept is not impacted. So that is the state impact.
• Now the district impact district impact.

Summary: The committee held a work session on HB 302, which would add precious metals and digital assets as potential investment options. State Treasurer Monica Misipelli said she took no position on the bill and did not see an immediate fiscal impact or operational problem, but explained that the state’s operating funds and rainy day fund require liquidity and stability, so they would not be suitable for volatile assets like precious metals or digital assets. She said the only funds that might potentially use such investments would be certain trust funds held in perpetuity, which are managed by an outside investment advisor under a contract and investment policy. Members asked about the treasurer’s current investment practices, including the types of funds managed, the role and discretion of the investment advisor, the state’s risk profile, and whether the bill would affect existing authority. Misipelli said the office follows RSA 11 and related statutes, with different objectives ranging from conservative to aggressive depending on the fund, and that the advisor meets with the office regularly, with formal performance reviews on a quarterly basis. She also said the office recently centralized management of about 40 trust accounts totaling roughly $60 million into five combined portfolios under a five-year contract with an RFP-selected vendor. When asked whether precious metals or digital assets are already indirectly available through mutual funds, she said that was possible for some mutual funds, but she was not certain about digital assets. Representative Ammon, the bill’s sponsor, said similar legislation had passed the Oklahoma House, the Texas House and Senate, and had advanced in Arizona. He argued the bill was intended to give the treasurer more tools to help balance portfolios and hedge inflation, noting concerns about federal debt and inflation. No vote was taken in the excerpt, and the chair ended the questioning after thanking the treasurer and asking her to remain available in case further questions arose.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just to clarify, I guess, the fiscal note, so it doesn't have an impact... Senator Sickler.
• I just... inflation, other things.
• I just inflation other things. Well, I say we come into a session.
• So a modest bump, and then the inflator kind of helps address that.
• So a modest bump, and then the inflator kind of helps address that.

Bills: HB1603

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Appropriations Committee met with a quorum and announced it would begin meeting at 8 a.m. for the rest of the week to work through a growing bill list. The committee first approved House Bill 1603, a companion to the Historical Society budget dealing with NAGPRA, including a $500,000 matching grant to be divided among North Dakota’s five tribes and a committee to address repatriation of human remains and cultural items. The vote was unanimous, 15-0. The committee then considered House Bill 1225, which would increase penalties for reckless endangerment involving a firearm and create a mandatory prison term. After debate over public safety concerns versus the bill’s fiscal note and prison costs, the committee adopted a do not pass recommendation by a 9-6-1 vote. Members also discussed House Bill 1018, the State Historical Society budget, and approved an amendment that adjusted one-time funding items, including NAGPRA compliance, museum exhibits, military gallery funding, local historic grants, and line-of-credit repayment. The amended bill then received a due pass recommendation by a 14-2 vote. The committee next approved House Bill 1468, a behavioral health facility grant for St. Hayes, which supporters said would expand in-state access to acute and adolescent behavioral health care and reduce the need to send patients out of state. The bill passed 14-1. It then amended and passed House Bill 1485, increasing the personal needs allowance for certain Medicaid recipients by $15 and indexing it to inflation; the amendment and the bill as amended both passed 14-2. Finally, the committee approved House Bill 1016, the Adjutant General/National Guard budget, after adopting an amendment that funded disaster relief, response equipment, IT and website costs, and staffing changes for the watch center; the amended bill passed 14-2. The committee adjourned after completing six bills and planned to resume the next morning at 8 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Two, the local impact.
• One large claim could impact other steps that we've undertaken.
• So I don't know where the true fiscal impact would be on us as a small city.
• He asked the committee to think about the impact on small cities, including the impact of a single $1
• Do we tie it to inflation? Do we tie it to the cost of medical care? All great ideas.

Summary: The Civil Justice and Claims Subcommittee considered HB 145, by Rep. McFarland, which would raise Florida’s sovereign immunity caps from $200,000 per person and $300,000 per incident to $500,000 and $1 million, with a future inflation-based increase, extend the time to bring claims, and allow local governments to settle claims above the cap without a claims bill. McFarland argued the bill modernizes an outdated system and helps injured people obtain compensation more fairly and efficiently, while preserving sovereign immunity. Several members spoke in support during debate, saying the bill better balances government accountability and victims’ rights and that current caps have not kept pace with inflation and damages. Public testimony was largely in opposition. Local governments, counties, cities, insurance groups, and school-related organizations warned the bill would significantly increase liability exposure, insurance premiums, and taxpayer costs, especially for small and rural governments and school districts. Opponents also objected to the provision allowing settlements above the cap without legislative action, saying it would weaken the cap and increase litigation and costs. Supporters countered that injured people often wait years for claims bills and that governments should be able to resolve meritorious claims directly. After debate, the committee voted 16-1 to report HB 145 favorably, with Rep. Lopez voting no. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Which is a measure of inflation. And Massachusetts would be the lower of 5% or CPI.
• in measuring and assessing impacts of rent regulation.
• For example, the end of rent control did not have a significant impact.
• First of all, as you've heard, in most other places rent control is of the form inflation plus X—inflation
• plus 5%, inflation plus 7%.

Bills: H5008

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Keywords: rent control, housing stability, tenants rights, affordability crisis, consumer protection

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-21, House Bill 508, an act to protect tenants by limiting rent increases. The chair explained the ballot process under Article 48 and outlined the hearing structure. The first witness, a Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies researcher, described Massachusetts’ worsening rental affordability, explained how rent regulation policies are typically designed, and reviewed research suggesting rent regulation can slow rent growth and improve tenant stability, while also noting concerns about reduced supply, quality, and implementation details. She compared the proposal to other state and local rent-stabilization laws and said the measure would cap increases at the lower of CPI or 5%, exempt certain housing types, and apply to new tenants as well as current tenants because it would not allow vacancy decontrol. Supporters of the petition argued that rent stabilization is needed to address displacement and immediate affordability pressures while broader housing production continues. The proponent from Homes for All Massachusetts said the policy is a grassroots response to corporate rent hikes and cited examples of tenants facing steep increases. A tenant from Arlington described a long dispute after a building was purchased by an investment firm and rents were raised sharply, saying the experience showed how rent increases can function as eviction. A union leader said high rents are forcing workers out of the communities they serve, and two experts testified that rent stabilization can reduce displacement and provide broad, immediate benefits. Committee members asked about the proposal’s exemptions, the 10-year new-construction carveout, vacancy decontrol, and whether the policy could discourage development; supporters said the bill targets large landlords, preserves room for small owners, and should be viewed as a complement to new housing production. Opponents, including small property owners, a chamber of commerce representative, a union official, and a landlord, argued the measure would hurt small landlords, reduce investment, and slow housing production. They said operating costs such as taxes, insurance, and maintenance rise faster than the proposed cap, and warned that capping rents would lower property values and tax revenues. Several opponents emphasized that many housing providers are not large corporations but local “mom-and-pop” owners, and one said the proposal would discourage pension funds and other investors from financing new projects. Committee members pressed opponents on what alternatives they would support for affordability, and opponents pointed to increased housing production and other housing policies instead of rent control. No vote or final action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So those did impact.
• These are nominal rates, meaning they are not adjusted for inflation.
• These are nominal rates, meaning they are not adjusted for inflation.
• systems negatively impact consumers.
• There has been business choices that have impacted... ...been business choices that have impacted both

Committee: Senate Energy, Utilities and Communications

Transcript Highlights:

• So I want to know about the inflation issue and how the administration looks at what the level of inflation
• When accounting for inflation... ...Great Recession, not adjusting for inflation.
• In addition to funding Chapter 70 at a level that takes into account the real impact of inflation, we
• Have you seen an impact?
• Have you seen an impact?

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Ways and Means

Summary: The Joint Committee on Ways and Means held a public hearing in Lawrence focused on the governor’s proposed FY27 budget for education and local aid. Opening remarks from Senator Pavel Payano, Representative Pat Duffy, and local leaders emphasized the importance of education funding for Lawrence and other Gateway Cities, with Acting Mayor Giovanni Rodriguez and Superintendent Ralph Carrero highlighting the city’s high-need student population, Chapter 70 and Student Opportunity Act funding, early college and career pathways, and the need for sustained support to close achievement gaps. The Education Secretariat testified in support of the budget, with Acting Secretary Amy Kershaw outlining investments in early literacy, universal pre-K, student mental health, school meals, high school redesign, higher education affordability, and early childhood systems. Commissioner Noi Ortega described higher education proposals including expanded free community college, continued free tuition at public four-year institutions, student success funding, early college and dual enrollment investments, and the Bright Act and Drive Act. Commissioner Pedro Martinez detailed K-12 proposals such as full Student Opportunity Act funding, increased Chapter 70 aid, special education circuit breaker funding, transportation aid, literacy initiatives, and a new Accelerating Achievement Initiative aimed at schools with the greatest needs. Commissioner Kershaw also described early education proposals including funding for C3, child care financial assistance, CPPI, workforce supports, and administrative funding restoration. Committee members questioned the administration about the pending local contribution formula study, the final year of Student Opportunity Act implementation, and the need to address health care and other cost drivers in school funding. Officials said the local contribution report is expected by the end of June and that a draft will be shared for public comment after data analysis is complete. Members also raised concerns about Chapter 70 disparities between districts and urged a broader review of the formula. In response, the commissioners said the Student Opportunity Act narrowed funding gaps but further work is needed, and they pointed to the new achievement initiative, literacy efforts, and early college expansion as ways to improve outcomes. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next item there is inflation, and that would be an escalation.
• We've heard all about inflation. Than the economy overall.
• We've heard all about inflation, you know, and obviously inflation is a big deal, but inflation in building
• have high transportation impact fees.
• So what has been the impact? What has been the impact on at-berth emissions in California?

Committee: Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Summary: The committee first heard a presentation from WSDOT on balancing uncertainty in capital program estimates and cash flow management. WSDOT explained the differences between design-bid-build and design-build delivery, its tiered risk-assessment process by project size, and how it uses base estimates, inflation, and risk modeling to set budgets. Staff said design-bid-build estimates are generally accurate within about 1% across the program, while design-build projects carry much wider uncertainty and are better communicated as ranges; they cited a P85 budget approach and noted that large, complex projects can be affected by market competition and long procurement timelines. Members asked about the Columbia River Bridge cost growth and about value engineering, and WSDOT said it uses value engineering but has limited scope to cut costs because of project requirements and policy mandates. Troy Swing also discussed cash flow, noting that a few large projects can significantly affect biennial funding needs, and said a risk pool would not reduce overall program risk but could help manage timing if paired with appropriation and cash-flow controls. The committee then received the final presentation in the WSDOT Project Delivery and Innovative Practices study from HKA Global. The consultant said WSDOT’s estimating practices are generally robust and recommended improving transparency by presenting budget authorizations as ranges or estimate classes, better tracking estimate growth over time, and adjusting advertisement timing to avoid competing lettings. The report also discussed surety bonding, suggesting the legislature consider restoring authority for reduced bonding on select large design-build projects or using phased bonding and alternative securities. On indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contracting, the consultant said current job order contract rules are restrictive and recommended legislative changes to make such tools more usable, especially for smaller tasks and to help use unspent funds more flexibly. The committee also heard a follow-up presentation on transit-oriented development policy recommendations tied to HB 1491. The Urban Institute’s Yona Freemark said Washington has been a national leader on TOD but that housing construction, especially in the Puget Sound, has slowed sharply since 2022. He said rising construction costs, high financing costs, and local tax and rent conditions are making many TOD projects infeasible, and recommended that the state fill infrastructure funding gaps around stations, revisit MFTE affordability requirements, consider minimum rather than average density requirements near transit, and create a statewide system to track TOD outcomes such as affordability, gentrification, and transit access. Members questioned the study’s developer interviews, the role of rent control and crime, property tax assumptions, and parking needs; the presenter said the study included five private developers, that rent control was not part of the study scope, and that parking was included in the model assumptions. Finally, the committee began a presentation on regulating emissions from ocean-going vessels at berth. Staff and consultants described California-style at-berth rules, which require shore power or equivalent emissions controls so ships can shut off diesel auxiliary engines while docked. The study is examining vessel traffic, emissions reductions, implementation costs, labor and operational needs, and possible effects on port competitiveness and cargo diversion. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.