Transcript Highlights:

• , that was a non-funded mandate?
• also lose funding.
• I doubt Palm Beach County will qualify for funding from that trust fund.
• funding children's services, asking to continue funding seniors, asking to continue funding our veterans
• And I funding seniors, asking to continue funding our veterans.

Summary: The House met in special session, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the journal, and adopted the special order report setting the day’s calendar. The chamber then took up CS/House Joint Resolution 1F, the Governor’s property tax proposal, which would raise the homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and restrict county and municipal ad valorem revenue to public safety and certain other uses. Sponsor Rep. Overdorf said the measure would return money to homeowners and give local governments flexibility, while opponents repeatedly argued the ballot language was misleading and that the proposal could create large local revenue shortfalls, shift costs to other taxpayers, and threaten local services and debt obligations. Members debated a series of amendments aimed at protecting specific programs from the bill’s effects. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to exempt Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was defeated 25-74 after supporters said those entities fund child care, mental health, aftercare, and family support, while opponents said local governments could still choose to fund them. Rep. Cross’s amendment to include water management districts in allowable uses of ad valorem taxes was also defeated, despite testimony that the districts are essential for flood control, water supply, Everglades restoration, and drought response. Rep. Eskamani’s amendment to require the Legislature to backfill public safety funding failed 25-71 after debate over whether the proposal could reduce police and fire budgets and response times. The House then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other aging services, and opponents saying the state already funds senior programs. Finally, Rep. Gant’s amendment to protect veteran services was introduced and debated, with members emphasizing housing, mental health, transition assistance, and homelessness concerns for veterans; the transcript cuts off before the vote on that amendment. Throughout the debate, sponsors and supporters of the main resolution maintained that local governments would retain spending discretion and could use other revenue sources, while critics argued the measure lacked clear backfill provisions and could force cuts or tax shifts at the local level.

Transcript Highlights:

• also lose funding.
• I doubt Palm Beach County will qualify for funding from that trust fund.
• fund services and... ...government with any funds necessary to fund services and programs related to
• funding children's services, asking to continue funding seniors, asking to continue funding our veterans
• And I funding seniors, asking to continue funding our veterans.

Transcript Highlights:

• De La Cruz. gone out the door including funds meant gone out the door including funds meant to<04:05:
• </c> unable to access federal funds unable to access federal funds authorized<04:05:32.080><c> by</c>
• </c> authorized by Congress these are funds authorized by Congress these are funds that<04:05:34.000>
• </c> progress to ensure federally funded progress to ensure federally funded programs<04:09:25.680><c
• Del Cruz from Texas.

Transcript Highlights:

• placed on them; they have lots of fines and fees placed on them, and they're still responsible for funding
• Professional development, we know, has yielded great results in the pilot projects that have been funded
• We haven't funded MSOC. We haven't funded special ed.
• We haven't funded STARS transportation model funding.
• Could we pay it out of the Paid Family and Medical Leave fund, go back to employers, have them pay it

Bills: HB1160 , HB1289 , HB1339 , HB1798 , HB1065 , HB1795 , HB2107 , HB2113 , HB2124 , HB2125 , HB2133 , HB2134 , HB2140 , HB2185 , HB2191 , HB2205 , HB2211 , HB2219 , HB2245 , HB2253 , HB2283 , HB2343 , HB2406 , HB2501 , HB2531 , HB2574 , HB1170 , HB1544 , HB1834 , HB2156 , HB2188 , HB2206 , HB2360 , HB2471 , HB2478 , HB2525 , HB2605 , HJM4012 , HB1104 , HB1152 , HB1254 , HB1443 , HB1710 , HB1750 , HB1903 , HB1941 , HB1974 , HB1982 , HB1983 , HB2006 , HB2034 , HB2105 , HB2179 , HB2203 , HB2215 , HB2223 , HB2239 , HB2247 , HB2297 , HB2303 , HB2322 , HB2329 , HB2334 , HB2338 , HB2345 , HB2348 , HB2350 , HB2353 , HB2355 , HB2363 , HB2367 , HB2379 , HB2388 , HB2399 , HB2418 , HB2420 , HB2428 , HB2441 , HB2462 , HB2464 , HB2467 , HB2495 , HB2505 , HB2534 , HB2539 , HB2544 , HB2551 , HB2554 , HB2557 , HB2575 , HB2577 , HB2588 , HB2594 , HB2604 , HB2636 , HB2714 , HB1160 , HB1289 , HB1339 , HB1798 , HB1065 , HB1795 , HB2113 , HB2124 , HB2125 , HB2134 , HB2140 , HB2185 , HB2191 , HB2205 , HB2211 , HB2219 , HB2245 , HB2253 , HB2283 , HB2343 , HB2406 , HB2501 , HB2574 , HB1170 , HB1544 , HB1834 , HB2156 , HB2188 , HB2206 , HB2471 , HB2478 , HB2605 , HJM4012 , HB1104 , HB1152 , HB1254 , HB1443 , HB1903 , HB1941 , HB1982 , HB2006 , HB2034 , HB2105 , HB2179 , HB2203 , HB2297 , HB2303 , HB2322 , HB2329 , HB2345 , HB2350 , HB2379 , HB2388 , HB2399 , HB2418 , HB2462 , HB2464 , HB2495 , HB2539 , HB2544 , HB2551 , HB2554 , HB2588 , HB2636 , HB1128 , HB1408 , HB1570 , HB1742 , HB1823 , HB2089 , HB2104 , HB2114 , HB2172 , HB2192 , HB2207 , HB2251 , HB2262 , HB2266 , HB2294 , HB2298 , HB2319 , HB2320 , HB2323 , HB2351 , HB2354 , HB2374 , HB2401 , HB2405 , HB2429 , HB2431 , HB2442 , HB2451 , HB2479 , HB2496 , HB2515 , HB2523 , HB2540 , HB2593 , HB2632 , HB2661 , HB1496 , HB1898 , HB2095 , HB2157 , HB2225 , HB2274 , HB2311 , HB2325 , HB2333 , HB2476 , HB2508 , HB2552

Keywords: design review, local government, land use, zoning, project permits, housing density, middle housing, affordable housing, parking minimums, single-family zoning, infill development, growth management, comprehensive plan, permit streamlining, objective development regulations, architectural review, administrative review, transit-oriented development, accessory dwelling units, ADU

Transcript Highlights:

• They found 35 different funding sources to get to 85% of the funding for their projects.
• for Cal Home, whether it's funding for student housing, funding for transition youth housing.
• And as we've discussed, mobile homes are very mobile homes.
• And the state used to have a fund.
• And that would be the kind of fund we'd want to fund and keep money in for the future for parks that

Summary: The committee heard AB 736, the Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, which would place a $10 billion housing bond on the ballot to fund multifamily housing, supportive housing, homeownership, preservation of deed-restricted units, acquisition/rehabilitation of naturally affordable housing, farmworker housing, and tribal housing. The author and supporters said the bond is needed because existing housing bond funds are exhausted and California still faces a severe affordability and homelessness crisis. Support was broad, with many local governments, housing groups, labor, and business organizations testifying in favor; Habitat for Humanity opposed unless 10% of proceeds were reserved for CalHome. Committee members raised the CalHome issue and other priorities, but the bill passed on a do-pass motion to Senate Appropriations with a roll-call vote, with some members voting aye and the measure held on call for absent members. The committee then took up SB 1361, which would limit how SB 79 transit-oriented housing rules can be used to interfere with planned transit stops and routes. The author and supporters from L.A. Metro and the building trades argued the bill would prevent local governments from stalling transit projects out of concern that future density requirements could apply, while preserving existing housing standards. Several groups that had initially opposed or had concerns, including the League of California Cities, Streets for All, Greenbelt Alliance, California YIMBY, and Bay Area Council, withdrew opposition or moved to neutral after amendments. The bill was approved as amended to Senate Local Government and placed on call. Senator Grayson presented SB 1003, creating a pro-housing infrastructure financing program to help local governments and developers fund infrastructure needed for infill housing, and SB 1014, requiring local agencies to provide early good-faith estimates and itemized lists of on-site and off-site improvements so projects are not hit with late surprise costs. Both bills were supported by housing advocates, Habitat for Humanity, and other groups, with limited opposition or concerns from some cities about implementation details. Each measure received a do-pass-as-amended motion to Senate Appropriations and was held on call. The committee also heard SB 908 on window replacement streamlining, which would ease permitting for energy-efficient residential window replacements statewide and limit certain new-construction provisions to San Francisco; it passed as amended to Appropriations and was held on call. Later, Senator Allen presented SB 1092 and SB 1093 on mobile home park preservation and post-disaster protections. SB 1092 would require park owners who intend to sell to give residents or their representatives an opportunity to make a competitive bid to buy the park, with supporters citing wildfire losses and the need to preserve unsubsidized affordable housing; opponents argued it would devalue property and create litigation risk. SB 1093 would require clearer communication, access, and compensation protections for residents after disasters, and would require owners to consider rebuilding versus closure. Supporters emphasized the uncertainty faced by displaced residents in the Palisades and other fire areas, while opponents said the bill could impose onerous obligations, liability, and valuation requirements. Both bills were moved do pass as amended to Appropriations and held on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• They found 35 different funding sources to get to 85% of the funding for their projects.
• And as we've discussed, mobile homes are very mobile homes.
• And as we've discussed, mobile homes are very mobile homes.
• And as we've discussed, mobile homes are very mobile homes. Senator Allen. All right.
• And as we've discussed, mobile homes are very mobile homes.

Committee: Senate Housing

Transcript Highlights:

• Child health and safety funds.
• foundation funds for homeless services.
• foundation funds for homeless services. fund and $500,000 in community foundation funds for homeless
• The bill requires the Department of Social Services to continue funding CalFresh when federal funding
• At the same time, other agencies serving Sonoma County have available funds. Those funds...

Committee: House Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• But without a permanent source of funding, future operations are vulnerable to potential funding shortfalls
• funding formula, which prioritizes student completion, and funding formula, which prioritizes student
• This challenge is compounded by the uncertain ROP funding streams.
• It’s difficult to get funding for it.
• It is a pathway to economic stability and upward mobility.

Summary: The committee heard several education bills, beginning with AB 387 on youth sports safety and AED access. The author and supporters, including youth sports and cardiac safety advocates, said the bill would improve coordination between youth sports organizations and facilities to ensure AEDs are available and emergency response is better prepared. School administrators, county groups, and school business officials opposed unless amended, citing liability, cost, staffing, maintenance, and school security concerns. Members asked about AED portability, CPR training, and liability; the author said committee amendments were accepted, but the bill was held due to lack of quorum while negotiations continued. AB 467 would codify the California Center for Climate Change Education at West Los Angeles College, allowing it to seek multi-year grants and other outside funding after an initial state appropriation sunsets. Supporters said the center has already trained faculty, supported paid internships and fellowships, and reached thousands of Californians, while opponents were absent. Members questioned whether codification was premature before the required report is due in 2027; the author said the measure was needed now to stabilize fundraising. The bill was also placed on hold for lack of quorum. A major portion of the hearing focused on AB 664 and AB 2694, both dealing with community college bachelor’s degrees. AB 664 would authorize Southwestern College to seek up to four targeted bachelor’s programs to address local workforce shortages in South San Diego County; students, local officials, and community college advocates supported it, while CSU and UC opposed, arguing for a statewide solution and concern about the master plan. AB 2694 proposed a broader statewide framework for community college bachelor’s degrees with stronger workforce and partnership requirements, reduced program caps, and limits on duplication; it drew support from community college groups and students, but CSU and UC again opposed or opposed unless amended. Members discussed place-bound students, workforce needs, transfer pathways, and the need for a master-plan-level approach, but no votes were taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee then heard AB 917, which would require certificated employees in very small school districts and certain county-run programs to receive permanent status under the same rules as larger districts. CTA and many educators supported the bill as a fairness and retention measure, while small school district and ROP representatives opposed, saying the current flexibility is necessary to manage enrollment swings, staffing, and specialized regional programs. Testimony emphasized the tension between job security for educators and operational flexibility for small LEAs; the hearing continued with more opposition testimony after the excerpt ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• the 988 fund.
• If we can fund apps, we can fund crisis response.
• CBHA is proud to stand alongside our county partners who fund and oversee mobile crisis services, and
• Shifting mobile crisis to a county-optional structure without additional funding does not create flexibility
• But in times like this, with the threats of HR1 or the possibility of lost funding for mobile crisis

Summary: The hearing focused first on behavioral health, especially serious mental illness and anosognosia, a condition described by witnesses as a neurological symptom that prevents people from recognizing they are ill. The chair framed the issue around families cycling through emergency rooms, jails, conservatorships, and short-term stabilization without lasting treatment, and warned that federal changes under H.R. 1 could reduce Medi-Cal funding and worsen access. Dawn Marie Anderson gave a personal account of her son’s long history of psychosis, homelessness, arrests, repeated jail and state hospital stays, and eventual stability when he received sustained medication and coordinated support. She argued that the system often treats the problem as criminal rather than medical and that voluntary programs and short-term services are not enough for people who lack insight into their illness. Other panelists, including representatives from the California Behavioral Health Association, Santa Barbara County Behavioral Health, and the County Behavioral Health Directors Association, agreed that anosognosia is not denial or noncompliance and said the system needs long-term, coordinated care, including assertive community treatment, mobile crisis, supportive housing, medication support, and stronger handoffs between county and managed care systems. They said CalAIM and other reforms have improved some coordination, but significant gaps remain, especially for people with serious mental illness, for those in jail or locked settings, and for people with private insurance, which witnesses said often offers little meaningful coverage for early psychosis or intensive behavioral health services. Several witnesses urged the Legislature to protect Medi-Cal, shore up county safety-net services, and invest in training and family engagement. The committee then turned to the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, with a focus on the virtual services platforms BrightLife Kids and Soluna and the CYBHI fee schedule. DHCS reported strong growth in app registrations, coaching sessions, referrals, and positive user outcomes, saying the platforms provide free, culturally responsive, early-intervention support statewide and help connect users to higher levels of care when needed. On the fee schedule, DHCS said more than 500 LEAs, colleges, universities, and school-linked providers are participating, 181 LEAs have submitted claims, and $9.6 million has been reimbursed to date, with 41,556 students represented in claims. The chair and several members criticized the pace of implementation and the amount of money spent relative to reimbursement levels, saying the Legislature had requested data earlier and that the return on investment still appeared low. DHCS responded that many claims are still being submitted, that 70% of denials are correctable, that $400 million in capacity grants has been distributed locally, and that reimbursement is increasing rapidly as more districts come online. Public comment included a rural county behavioral health director who said private insurance denials leave counties with significant uncompensated work, especially for unlicensed staff providing case management and mobile crisis services.

Transcript Highlights:

• A 10% allocation of bond funds is completely consistent with past funding levels that Cal Home has received
• A 10% allocation of bond funds is completely consistent with past funding levels that Cal Home has received
• They found 35 different funding sources to get to 85% of the funding for their projects.
• for Cal Home, whether it's funding for student housing, funding for transition youth housing.
• And the state used to have a fund—I haven’t been able to find out whether it’s still in there, a fund

Committee: Senate Housing

Summary: The committee heard AB 736, a proposed $10 billion Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, with Assembly Member Buffy Wicks and numerous housing, local government, labor, and advocacy groups testifying in strong support. Supporters said the bond would fund multifamily housing, permanent supportive housing, homeownership, preservation, farmworker, tribal, and other programs, and argued that the state needs new capital because prior bond funds are exhausted and many shovel-ready projects are waiting. Habitat for Humanity California opposed the bill unless it was amended to dedicate 10% of bond proceeds to Cal Home for affordable homeownership, and several senators said they supported the bond but wanted Cal Home strengthened. The committee voted do pass to Senate Appropriations, with the measure placed on call for absent members. The committee also heard SB 1361 by Senator Durazo, which would limit local governments from using SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements as a reason to stall or condition planned transit projects. Los Angeles Metro, the Building Trades, and several cities and advocacy groups supported the bill, saying it would protect transit investments, jobs, and federal funding from opposition tied to future density around transit stops. Several groups that had initially opposed or been concerned about the bill, including West Hollywood, Streets for All, Greenbelt Alliance, California YIMBY, and the Bay Area Council, withdrew opposition or moved to neutral after amendments. The committee approved the bill as amended to Senate Local Government, with the measure also placed on call. Senator Grayson presented SB 1003, creating an Infrastructure Partnership Financing Program to help local governments and developers fund infrastructure needed for infill housing, and SB 1014, which would require local agencies to provide early, good-faith estimates and itemized lists of required on-site and off-site improvements for housing projects. Both bills were supported by housing advocates, Habitat for Humanity, SPUR, and industry groups, who said the measures would reduce uncertainty, late fees, and project delays. The committee advanced both bills as amended to Senate Appropriations, placing them on call. The committee also took up SB 908, which streamlines energy-code-compliant window replacement and limits aesthetic review, especially for residential replacements; it passed as amended to Appropriations after support from affordable housing and green building groups and no opposition. Later, Senator Allen presented SB 1092 and SB 1093 on mobile home park preservation and post-disaster protections. SB 1092 would give residents notice and an opportunity to make a competing bid when a park owner intends to sell, with supporters arguing it would help preserve unsubsidized affordable housing and protect displaced residents, while park owner representatives argued it would devalue properties, create litigation risk, and interfere with market transactions. SB 1093 would require more communication, access, and consideration of rebuilding or closure after disasters, and would restore certain resident reimbursement rights; supporters cited the Palisades fire and survey data showing residents lacked information and access, while opponents said the bill imposed onerous timelines, liability issues, and penalties and could force owners into rebuilding or compensation assumptions they disputed. Both bills were discussed at length, but the transcript ends before final recorded votes on them.

Transcript Highlights:

• , on the timing of the funds.
• But cities and counties where we work, where we have a mobility fee based off a mobility plan that's
• Mobility fee, mobility plan system.
• fee, mobility plan system.
• fee and mobility plan to help agree on what the required cost is, within the framework of a mobility

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have seen this in Texas.
• We have seen it happen in Texas.
• This bill has been passed in Texas, Arizona, and Alabama. In Texas, we saw frivolous lawsuits.
• “In Texas, which I’ve represented families who’ve lost loved ones in Texas as well, every single survivor
• In Texas, which I've represented families who've lost loved ones in Texas as well, every single survivor

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present, then adopted the special order report for the day. The chamber took up House Bill 167 on former phosphate mining lands. Sponsor Rep. McClure said the bill removes strict liability for previously mined phosphate lands if a Department of Health study is completed at the owner’s request and the former mining status is recorded publicly. Opponents, led by Rep. Cross and others, argued the bill relies too heavily on buyer-beware principles and does not adequately notify future buyers or renters. The bill passed 87-24 after debate. Members then considered House Bill 145 on suits against the government. Rep. McFarland said it updates Florida’s sovereign immunity caps, raising them to $500,000 per person and $1 million per incident, with a later automatic increase, while preserving the liability shield and improving access to compensation for people harmed by government negligence. The bill also aligns the statute of limitations with private claims and allows entities to settle above the cap. After brief debate, the House passed the bill 104-7. The House next debated CS/HB 289 on wrongful death for an unborn child, which would expand Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to allow claims involving unborn children and their parents. The bill prompted extensive questioning and debate about damages, definitions, medical care, surrogacy, and whether the measure could affect abortion access or expose doctors, friends, family members, and surrogates to lawsuits. Multiple amendments sought to carve out protections for mothers, health care providers, abortion care, perinatal professionals, surrogates, and victims of rape, incest, or human trafficking, but each was defeated. The final vote on the bill itself was 33-78, so the motion failed and the bill did not advance.

Transcript Highlights:

• Counties are instrumental in funding local health ability to provide direct services such as mobile clinics
• We need more funding for transportation, more funding for water and sewer, and more funding for other
• 609 funds.
• eligible for SCAP funding.
• The SAFE Advisory Group was funded $136,000 general fund state in fiscal year 2026.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a public hearing on multiple bills, beginning with a motion to suspend the five-day notice rule for a long list of Senate bills, which passed on a voice vote. The committee first heard Substitute Senate Bill 6026, a governor-request housing bill that would require cities and counties over 30,000 population to allow residential uses in commercial and mixed-use zones, limit mixed-use/ground-floor commercial requirements in some areas, and allow added height where such requirements are imposed. The lieutenant governor testified strongly in support, arguing the bill would add needed housing capacity without requiring ground-floor retail burdens. The hearing on SB 6026 was then suspended so the committee could move through the agenda. The committee then heard Senate Bill 6294, a broad local government finance measure with eight parts, including expanded uses for certain REET revenues, a new county public utility tax, a new local sales tax for children and family services, expanded housing-related tax uses, changes to county levy structure, longer lid lift periods, and expanded use of rental car tax revenue. Local government, housing, and public health witnesses largely supported the bill, emphasizing flexibility for affordable housing, rental assistance, children’s services, and county fiscal stability. Opponents, including wireless industry, water/sewer district, auto dealer, realtors, energy, and cannabis representatives, objected to specific tax provisions as regressive, costly, or likely to raise consumer prices. Several witnesses requested amendments, including adding public health clinic funding and flood recovery language from House bills. The committee also heard Substitute Senate Bill 5400 on local news sustainability, which would create a state grant program funded by a surcharge on large search engines and social media platforms to support journalism jobs and the Murrow Fellowship program. News organizations, the League of Women Voters, open government advocates, and local journalism supporters testified in favor, saying local news is essential to civic life and that the bill would help sustain reporting without using general fund dollars. Technology industry representatives opposed the bill, arguing it unfairly singles out tech companies and could face legal challenges. The committee then heard Senate Bill 6211, which would let opt-in GMA jurisdictions impose REET-2 without voter approval; cities and counties supported it as a parity and infrastructure funding measure, while Realtors opposed the loss of voter approval. Senate Bill 5650, authorizing local cannabis excise taxes, drew support from some local officials but strong opposition from cannabis businesses, which argued Washington’s cannabis taxes are already too high and drive sales to the illicit market. Senate Bill 6033, waiving penalties and interest for taxpayers who failed to collect new sales tax on certain services, was supported by NFIB as a compliance and fairness measure. Senate Bill 6297, exempting temporary staffing services for nonprofit behavioral health providers from sales tax, drew strong support from behavioral health organizations citing workforce shortages and unsustainable costs. Finally, Senate Bill 6343, extending and expanding tax relief for disaster-damaged property and repairs, was presented as aid for flood recovery; local officials testified in support. No final committee votes on the bills were taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we can fund apps, we can fund crisis response.
• If we can fund apps, we can fund crisis response.
• CBHA is proud to stand alongside our county partners who fund and oversee mobile crisis services, and
• Shifting mobile crisis to a county optional structure without additional funding does not create flexibility
• But in times like this, with the threats of HR1 or the possibility of lost funding for mobile crisis

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> &gt;&gt; Stephen McNair, city of Mobile. Uh Mr. &gt;&gt; Stephen McNair, city of Mobile.
• </c><00:04:37.040><c> will</c> is the city council of Mobile will is the city council of Mobile will
• "Well, right now it's the gateway to Mobile, the western gateway, the southwestern gateway to Mobile.
• </c><00:10:09.680><c> delegation</c> support from um the Mobile delegation support from um the Mobile
• </c><00:10:58.640><c> Sports</c> be on behalf of the Mobile Sports be on behalf of the Mobile Sports

Committee: House Mobile County Legislation

Transcript Highlights:

• funding to ensure that the that some funding continues<02:12:14.800><c> for</c><02:12:14.960><c> the
• </c> continues for the renewable energy fund. continues for the renewable energy fund.
• </c> keep a million dollar in that fund. keep a million dollar in that fund.
• funded through the<02:18:59.920><c> renewable</c><02:19:00.240><c> energy</c><02:19:00.559><c> fund</
• funding, what happens?

Committee: Senate Energy and Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• As we all know, while they're called mobile homes, mobile homes are typically not able to be moved.
• This bill provides that if a mobile home park...
• This bill provides that if a mobile home park...
• state's population in terms of mobile home residents.
• And so if we, Family live in a mobile home park.

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> drawing down federal funds. drawing down federal funds.
• </c><01:05:13.880><c> and</c> funding relief, funding to modernize and funding relief, funding to modernize
• </c> funding reductions in HR 1. funding reductions in HR 1.
• </c> including on mobile medical unit. including on mobile medical unit.
• </c> grants received funding. grants received funding.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so, we already have statewide crisis mobile outreach.
• </c> people can call, and crisis mobile people can call, and crisis mobile outreach<00:43:18.040><c>
• funding for the appropriate match, right?
• </c> towards uh any type of future funding towards uh any type of future funding for<01:39:11.760><c>
• </c><01:39:34.040><c> for</c><01:39:34.160><c> the</c> we don't have funding for the we don't have funding

Bills: SB709 , SB2089 , SB2090 , SB2108 , SB2211 , SB2250 , SB2325 , SB2803 , SB2866 , SB3245

Committee: House Human Services & Homelessness

Summary: The committee heard SB 709 SD2, which would require the Department of Health to respond to reports involving persons with severe mental illness, assess eligibility for assisted community treatment, and coordinate treatment when appropriate. Testimony from the Department of Human Services and the Department of Health supported the measure, with DOH saying it generally supported the bill but had comments on one section it viewed as unnecessary. The Department of Law Enforcement later explained that the bill would shift certification and standards for crisis intervention officer training from DOH to DLE, while still involving DOH in the training process. Opposition came from the Hawaii Disability Rights Center and an individual testifier, both of whom argued the bill expands state authority over people with mental illness and could worsen forced treatment practices. The Disability Rights Center also raised procedural concerns, saying the bill was effectively moved from a prior administration measure that had not been heard this session, and questioned whether the bill’s changes to assisted community treatment, blood tests, urinalysis, and living arrangements went beyond current law. The individual testifier argued the bill would further entrench harmful psychiatric drugging and urged the committee to defer it. Committee members questioned the administration about the bill’s process, the role of the Attorney General in treatment-over-objection proceedings, and the practical effects of moving CIT certification to DLE. The Attorney General’s office said the bill was intended to fill a gap by allowing it to assist with treatment proceedings, while public defenders would continue to represent respondents and due process protections would remain in place. DLE and DOH said the change would better align certification with law enforcement training needs, improve speed in crisis response, and still keep DOH involved; members also discussed whether WAM counted as a hearing and whether the bill should more explicitly preserve DOH’s role. No vote or final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We should remember today that industrial mobilization does not occur overnight.
• At OSD, I was in the trenches of mobilization efforts for almost a decade.
• Yeah, it should absolutely be focused on mobilization efforts, but some of the efforts that DPA is funding
• One is mobilization.
• We've seen funding cuts that don't seem to be organized.

Committee: Senate Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel