Transcript Highlights:

• It... ...progress, coordinator, not started, designated, in progress, and not designated.
• the review process.
• Reviewed. Reviewed. My brain just, the word left me. We're reviewed.
• So I attended the Community Impact grant review on May 6th, in which 15 grants were reviewed.
• It's clear, again, echoing things, that the review process is well designed and well executed.

Transcript Highlights:

• The ALC-Review Subcommittee will come to order.
• There are seven for your review today.
• So they're presenting this project for your review today.
• There are five for your review today.
• And then total after review, $1.4 million.

Committee: All ALC-REVIEW

Summary: The ALC-Review Subcommittee reviewed seven methods of finance, including university projects at ASU Jonesboro and Mountain Home, Black River Technical College deferred maintenance, UA Batesville’s Farm Project Gateway Center, UAMS PET cyclotron equipment, a new allied health building at UAPB funded by a federal grant, and UCA’s multi-purpose arena design work. The committee also approved an alternative delivery construction project for UAPB’s Allied Health and Sciences Building, with East Harding Construction selected and AMR Architects as designer. Members then approved discretionary grants from the Department of Health and DHS, including support for a heart attack center designation, community health worker training, homeless services funding corrections, behavioral health transition support, and an enabling technology pilot. In the contracts section, the committee reviewed RFQs, construction-related contracts, intergovernmental contracts, and a large slate of out-of-state and in-state contracts covering topics such as seatbelt survey data collection, Medicaid and DHS systems, state hospital staffing and services, veterans’ services, education assessments, and state IT and procurement projects. Several contracts drew extended questioning. Senators and representatives pressed DHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs about heavy reliance on contract nursing and staffing costs, and officials said they were using pay incentives and recruitment efforts to increase state employee staffing. Members also questioned AEDC’s lithium supply chain study and the Department of Education’s security contract, with concerns about projected costs and repeated amendments. The committee held three in-state contracts—Department of Education security services and two DHS staffing contracts—until Friday, then adopted the remaining contracts and received informational reports on contract amendments, executed contracts, and emergency procurements before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Could they be designated?
• So if a designation is challenged, does the court conduct an independent review of the facts, or does
• as a foreign terrorist organization may seek judicial review of the designation in the United States
• be designated.
• , able to be reviewed by the governor and the cabinet in order to make the designation, but not released

Bills: S0500 , S0536 , S0762 , S1582 , S1632 , S1634 , S1742 , S1750 , S1792

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:06:58.440><c> roadway</c><00:06:58.919><c> designs</c> safe designs roadway designs safe designs
• </c> revocation office for their review revocation office for their review decisions<00:26:55.159><c>
• You know, we've had this ADLRO process reviewed by the Hawaii Supreme Court, and when they did the review
• You know, we've had this ADLRO process reviewed by the Hawaii Supreme Court, and when they did the review
• </c> substitute safeguards and the review substitute safeguards and the review process<00:32:44.159><

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Summary: The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard several transportation and public safety measures on March 28, 2025. SB 1195 would prohibit parking within certain distances of crosswalks and intersections, direct parking fine revenue to the Safe Routes to School special fund, and remove the need for signs or curb markings in some cases. The Department of Transportation, Department of Health, and Ulupono Initiative supported the bill, emphasizing improved visibility, pedestrian safety, and funding for school-route improvements; written testimony included both support and one opposition. No vote was taken during the hearing segment provided. The committee also heard SB 1102 on the aircraft rescue firefighting unit chief, which would set term-based appointment provisions for the airport division’s fire chief. DOT supported the measure, saying it would give the director flexibility to select leadership and adapt to changing needs, while a member asked about current removal procedures for underperforming employees. The bill was presented as a management and leadership measure, with no action taken in the excerpt. SB 1216, addressing noisy mufflers and safety inspection requirements, drew DOT support in principle but concern that existing rules already cover inspection standards and that enforcement after inspection remains difficult; DOT also described a planned noise-detection camera pilot on Oʻahu. Testimony included support from neighborhood and advocacy groups and opposition from three individuals. For SB 30, which would require helmets for moped riders under 21, DOT and HPD supported the bill, citing crash data and injury prevention; testimony was evenly split overall, with six in support and six in opposition. SB 344 would require helmets for skateboard users under 18; DOT supported it, and a DOT witness explained current helmet rules for other devices such as e-bikes, scooters, and motorcycles. SB 1095, increasing decal size limits for special number plates, drew DOT concerns that larger decals could interfere with plate readability and automated enforcement. SB 1522 would make proof of filing required vehicle-transfer notice forms a complete defense to actions arising from the vehicle’s later use or abandonment; the Judiciary said it had no position on the bill’s merits but objected to language requiring new court forms and raised access and legal-advice concerns, while Honolulu’s Department of Customer Services supported the measure. The committee then heard SB 597, extending the deadline for the Administrative Driver’s License Revocation Office to issue written review decisions. The Attorney General and DOT supported the extension, citing limited toxicology capacity and shipping delays for testing, and several law enforcement and public health entities also supported it. In contrast, the ADLRO hearing officer testified with serious concerns about due process, warning that eliminating or delaying the review process could create constitutional problems, disproportionately burden people without attorneys, and jeopardize thousands of cases. Finally, SB 1285 proposed a tiered revocation system for DUI arrests; ADLRO strongly opposed it on due process grounds, while DOT supported it as a safety measure and the Hawaii Public Health Institute commented that evidence is lacking for standalone mandatory revocation and suggested stronger impaired-driving standards instead. The committee had not yet taken final action in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• How long do we give DOT to review our work?
• This is actually the design work.
• But we also looked at your design-bid-build program, at Washington State's design-bid-build program,
• History of design-build.
• WSDOT review of local projects.

Committee: Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's Spokesman-Review, and ICE daycare Izaquois.
• So the environmental boards have a separate set of review standards.
• But just right now the auditors can designate, or people can be designated as observers currently.
• , that would be or could be designated as non-public.
• They designated the county auditors.

Committee: House Civil Rights & Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• both for JLARC itself and our review of tax preference statements.
• The first measure is a peer review rating.
• JLARC are the review of tax preferences.
• Transparency and how the fee design limits cost recovery.
• Now I'll explain what will be in the sunset review.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on January 7, 2026, approved the December minutes, and adopted an amended work plan. Staff proposed moving the drug takeback program sunset review up to 2026 and delaying the thermal energy network pilot review to 2028, which would free capacity for new studies. Members also noted bills that would eliminate two recurring JLARC reports, including one on unemployment insurance training benefits and one on lodging tax revenue reporting. The committee then discussed JLARC’s own performance measures and a pilot approach for evaluating tax preference performance statements in fiscal notes. Staff said JLARC will begin surveying members and the full legislature on satisfaction, track invitations to present to other committees, monitor recommendation resolution rates, staff retention, on-time report delivery, peer review results, and national recognition. For tax preference reviews, staff proposed a standard rubric to assess whether performance metrics match policy goals, are measurable, use reliable data, and allow enough time for evaluation; members generally supported the effort. Staff also outlined planned changes to public records reporting, including allowing agencies to opt out of tracking low-volume metrics, targeted outreach to nonreporting agencies, better data validation, clearer online guidance, and a survey of public records officers. The main audit presentation was a preliminary report on ignition interlock device compliance and monitoring. JLARC found that about 41% of drivers required to install devices had done so, with installation rates rising sharply with income; half of affected drivers earned less than $28,000 a year, and the typical annual device cost was about $2,700. Staff said the state’s financial assistance program has limited reach and lacks clear goals, performance measures, and coordination between the Department of Licensing and State Patrol. They recommended that the agencies formalize their roles and develop a coordinated strategy to improve installation rates. State Patrol and Licensing said they support the findings, described recent outreach pilots, and said they would work on a management plan and possible expansion of outreach efforts. JLARC also presented an expedited preliminary report on the drug take-back program’s fee setting and expenditures. Staff concluded that the current fee design limits the Department of Health’s ability to recover oversight costs and that public reporting of oversight expenditures would improve transparency. They recommended that DOH publicly report its oversight activities and that the legislature amend the fee structure to remove the cap tied to program operator expenditures. DOH agreed the current structure does not fully recover costs and said it would support a statutory change. The committee adjourned after noting its next regular meeting is scheduled for April 8, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee for January 7, 2026.
• We have a number of important updates about performance reviews, both for JLARC itself and our review
• The first measure is a peer review rating.
• JLARC are the review of tax preferences.
• I’ll explain how the fee design limits DOH’s cost recovery.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee met on January 7, 2026, approved the December minutes, and adopted an amended work plan. Staff proposed moving the drug take-back program sunset review up to 2026 and delaying the thermal energy network pilot review to 2028, which would free capacity for new studies. Members also discussed active bills that would eliminate two recurring JLARC reports, including one on lodging tax revenue data collection, and the committee adopted the work plan without objection. JLARC staff then outlined new performance measures for the committee itself, covering effectiveness, efficiency, and quality. The measures include member and legislative satisfaction surveys, presentations to other committees, recommendation follow-up, staff retention, on-time report delivery, peer review results, and national recognition. Members praised the effort and did not take formal action, treating the measures as an ongoing process. The committee also heard a proposal to improve JLARC’s review of tax preference performance statements by adding a standard rubric in fiscal notes to assess whether a metric matches the policy objective, is measurable, uses reliable data, and allows enough time for evaluation. Members supported the pilot approach. Staff also described planned changes to public records reporting guidance, including opt-outs for low-volume metrics, better validation, targeted outreach to nonreporting agencies, and a survey of records officers. Two preliminary reports were presented. On ignition interlock devices, JLARC found that only 41% of drivers with a requirement had installed a device, with installation rates rising sharply with income; financial assistance reaches only about 11% of users, and JLARC recommended clearer program goals and stronger coordination between the Department of Licensing and State Patrol. On the drug take-back program, JLARC found that the fee structure tied to operator expenditures limits the Department of Health’s ability to recover oversight costs and recommended public reporting of oversight spending and a statutory change to better align fees with actual costs. Agency representatives generally agreed with the findings, described current coordination and administrative changes, and said they would consider the recommendations. No formal votes were taken on the reports, which will return in final form later in the year.

Transcript Highlights:

• AND YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET LADIES AND GENTLEMEN A REVIEW OF THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS AND IF I CAN GRAB
• THIS INCLUDES ITEMS AND PROJECTS SUBJECT TO REVIEW. THERE ARE CERTIFICATES OF NEED EXEMPTIONS.
• AGAIN THE SHORT ANSWER IS WE ARE REVIEWING THESE RULES.
• WE JUST SIMPLY HAD COMPLETED THAT REVIEW TO ENSURE THEY DON'T.
• THOSE LOW IMPACT DESIGN PIECES.

Transcript Highlights:

• We can design cures. We can deliver or deploy them really fast as well.
• And our organization is designed to achieve this as fast as possible.
• And this goes around and around in a design-build-test-learn cycle.
• And that ethics review then gets reviewed by another committee that I'm on.
• We then review those. We have a big interspending group that reviews those things.

Summary: The hearing focused on how artificial intelligence is being used across California’s life sciences sector, from research and drug discovery to digital health, medical devices, and patient care. Chair Ward and Chair Bauer-Kahan opened by emphasizing California’s leadership in biotech, the need to preserve that ecosystem, and the importance of balancing innovation with privacy, consumer protection, and equitable access. They also highlighted the potential role of public compute and public-private partnerships, including CalCompute, in keeping California competitive. The first panel featured representatives from UCSF, the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Dr. Ida Sim described AI-enabled digital health tools, including sensor-based blood pressure monitoring and efforts to connect wearable data with electronic health records through open infrastructure. Dr. Karen Knudson focused on cancer, saying AI can accelerate drug discovery, improve learning from every patient, and expand clinical trial access. Dr. Shankar Sundaram discussed AI for public health and biosecurity, including outbreak prediction, antibody redesign, and the need to unlock data, expand compute access, and support public health agencies. Panelists also discussed privacy, HIPAA/CMIA protections, open-source versus closed models, validation, and the need for faster, more modern FDA pathways. The second panel included speakers from Pangea Data, Dexcom, Eli Lilly Ventures, and Twist Bioscience. Dr. Vibhur Gupta described AI systems that identify care gaps in electronic health records and argued for reimbursement frameworks that would let such tools scale beyond large health systems into rural care. Dexcom’s Ginny Hu explained how the company uses AI in its continuous glucose monitoring products, with strong FDA-aligned verification, validation, cybersecurity, human oversight, and post-market monitoring. Eli Lilly’s Danjima Corliss emphasized AI as a scientific collaborator in drug discovery and highlighted Lilly’s high-performance computing investments in California. The discussion continued to return to data access, model transparency, regulatory modernization, and how California can support innovation while protecting patients.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are seven for your review today.
• There are five for your review today.
• There are five for your review today.
• Item E are the contracts presented for your review today.
• And then total after review, $1.4 million.

Committee: All ALC-REVIEW

Transcript Highlights:

• the designate is a third party?
• the designate is a third party?
• to become a piece of AI software that we... other designate language into a other designate language
• </c> &gt;&gt; I would be very hesitant for the design &gt;&gt; I would be very hesitant for the design
• </c><00:44:35.920><c> board</c> an obsolete institutional review board an obsolete institutional review

Committee: Senate Executive Departments and Administration

Transcript Highlights:

• Could they be designated?
• So if a designation is challenged, does the court conduct an independent review of the facts, or does
• as a foreign terrorist organization may seek judicial review of the designation in the United States
• be designated.
• ... ...anything specific to this designation would be designated as such, able to be reviewed by the

Bills: S0500 , S0536 , S0762 , S1582 , S1632 , S1634 , S1742 , S1750 , S1792

Committee: Senate Appropriations Committee on Criminal and Civil Justice

Summary: The committee first considered SB 536, which updates Florida’s criminal gang statutes to reflect modern recruitment and communication methods, including social media and encrypted messaging. Senator Martin and supporters said the bill does not criminalize gang membership, but helps law enforcement and prosecutors establish gang-related connections for warrants and sentencing enhancements. Senator Smith raised concerns about the lowered threshold for being observed with gang members and possible unintended impacts on business owners and others; Martin said the language was not intended to cover ordinary business interactions and that a gang tattoo must be one used by the gang. After an amendment aligning the Senate bill with the House version was adopted, the committee reported CS/SB 536 favorably. The committee also favorably reported CS/SB 762, which allows chief judges to assign capital conflict cases across regional counsel offices, with an amendment requiring judges to consider judicial economy and geographic proximity. Testimony from regional counsel emphasized projected long-term savings, estimated at about $150 million over 10 years. The committee then approved CS/SB 1742, creating a new indecent exposure offense involving sexual conduct directed at minors, and CS/SB 1750, which increases penalties for serious sex crimes and child sexual abuse material offenses; both bills were amended before passage, with law enforcement groups appearing in support. The committee next took up SB 1582, which creates statewide data sharing for secondhand dealer and pawnbroker transactions without creating a new state-run database, while preserving confidentiality protections and law enforcement access. An amendment was adopted, and pawnbroker and recycling stakeholders testified in support. The linked public records bill, SB 1792, creating an exemption for those transaction records while allowing certain information to be released to alleged owners, was also reported favorably. The committee then approved CS/SB 500, which provides FDLE protective security details to major party nominees for governor, lieutenant governor, and cabinet offices after primary certification and until the general election is resolved; a technical amendment was adopted, and the bill was described as mirroring federal candidate protection practices. The longest and most contentious discussion was on CS/SB 1632, which would bar Florida courts from enforcing foreign or religious law in a way that overrides the U.S. or Florida constitutions and would create a process for designating foreign or domestic terrorist organizations, with related consequences for schools, funding, and student conduct. Senator Grall said the bill is intended to protect constitutional principles and target violent, criminal conduct rather than protected speech or religious practice, and she explained that designations would follow a public process with judicial review. Senators Smith and Polsky pressed repeatedly on First Amendment, due process, vagueness, and academic-speech concerns, asking how “promotion” would be defined and whether students, attorneys, or advocacy groups could be swept in; Grall said she was open to clarifying language but maintained the bill is aimed at furthering illegal acts, not mere opinion. Numerous speakers opposed the bill, warning it could be used to target Muslim students, religious communities, advocacy groups, and political dissent, while a few supporters argued it was needed for public safety. The transcript ends during public testimony on SB 1632, with no final committee vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Annexations are exempt from SEPA review.
• Some, but not all, annexation methods are subject to review by an annexation—sorry, a boundary review
• There are increasingly fewer boundary review boards around the state. Part of this is by design.
• by the boundary review board.
• If the annexation method provides for a review, then it would be subject to review by that board.

Summary: The committee held a work session on local government issues, beginning with an update from the State Building Code Council on four legislatively mandated code amendments now in CR-102 rulemaking: temporary emergency shelters, reduced minimum dwelling unit size, multiplex housing up to three stories and six units, and single-exit apartment buildings up to six stories. Council staff also described a separate embodied-carbon appendix proposal that remains under public review, with testimony both supporting and opposing it. Members asked about the rationale for some of the code limits, including the restriction on connecting multiplex buildings. The committee then heard a panel on annexations from MRSC, Pierce County, and the Association of Washington Cities. Witnesses reviewed annexation methods, including petition, election, and interlocal agreement approaches, and said larger annexations are increasingly using interlocal agreements because they can address infrastructure, revenue sharing, and public process concerns. They described barriers such as inconsistent local standards, the cost of infrastructure, referendum risk, census requirements, and the difficulty of persuading residents and local officials to support annexation. Members asked about the five-year restriction on residential zoning changes in one annexation method and whether a hearing examiner could reduce political pressure on local decision-makers. A second panel discussed subdivision reform. The Master Builders Association urged raising the short-plat threshold within urban growth areas to 30 lots as a simpler first step, citing permitting delays and added housing costs. The City of Spokane described implementation problems with recent housing laws, including uncertainty about how to review plats under HB 1110, lot-splitting administration, and added notice requirements for unit lot subdivisions. AWC said there was broad agreement that subdivision decisions should be more administrative, but public hearings remained a point of disagreement. The committee also heard from FutureWise, the Washington State Association of Counties, and Lewis County on county development regulation and enforcement, with witnesses emphasizing underfunded code enforcement, inconsistent standards between counties and cities, and the need for better coordination, incentives, and possibly stronger enforcement tools. No votes were taken; the chair said the committee would continue working on possible solutions in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• review review and ability<00:36:38.960><c> to</c><00:36:39.280><c> come</c><00:36:39.520><c> up</c><
• And if they can fit that prepackaged IWS design, then yeah, the review should be significantly quicker
• And if they can fit that prepackaged IWS design, then yeah, the review should be significantly quicker
• </c> county projects reviewed under 6E-42. county projects reviewed under 6E-42.
• </c> because it just wasn't ready for review. because it just wasn't ready for review.

Transcript Highlights:

• That meant reviewing design standards, implementing global best practices, sequencing the project appropriately
• That meant reviewing design standards, implementing global best practices, sequencing the project appropriately
• That meant reviewing design standards, implementing global best practices, sequencing the project appropriately
• That meant reviewing design standards, implementing global best practices, sequencing the project appropriately
• from past operational reviews.

Committee: House Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• or an area of critical state concern designation by the FDEP.
• But this provides another pathway for them to get the designation.
• So I'm not familiar with the designation process. How far back does that go?
• What are the implications here if we're designating golf courses as agriculture?
• What are the implications here if we're designating golf courses as agriculture?

Summary: The Committee on Environment and Natural Resources heard and approved several bills. SB 636 by Sen. Leek would create additional pathways for counties and municipalities to obtain critically eroded beach or area of critical state concern designations, with the sponsor and supporters describing it as a forward-looking beach management approach that could improve access to state and federal funding. Questions focused on whether the bill imposed an unfunded mandate and how it would affect existing designations; the sponsor said it was voluntary and not retroactive. Pepper Uchino of the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association supported the proactive concept but stressed that funding remains the central issue. The bill was reported favorably. The committee also considered CS/SB 544 by Sen. Truenow, which transfers the Golf Course Best Management Practices Certification Program from DEP to FDACS. The sponsor said the move would improve continuity and encourage more golf courses to enroll in BMPs, while maintaining existing environmental requirements and enforcement through DEP if problems arise. Senator Smith and an opponent from the Florida Springs Council questioned whether golf courses are truly agricultural and raised concerns about water quality protections and possible tax or land-use implications; supporters from the Florida Golf Course Superintendents Association said the bill does not change taxation or existing nutrient reporting requirements. After a technical amendment, the bill was reported favorably, with Senator Smith voting no. CS/SB 848 by Sen. Truenow, dealing with stormwater treatment and water quality enhancement areas, was also amended and reported favorably. The sponsor said the bill clarifies the difference between permanent, secured water quality credits and stormwater allocations, and the amendment would allow WQEAs to address new stormwater rule requirements until rulemaking is complete and make public-land reviews forward-looking only. A representative of Resource Environmental Solutions supported the measure and said it would help create a reliable market for water quality credits. The committee then approved CS/SB 546 by Vice Chair Mayfield, which strengthens public notice requirements for the sale or exchange of state conservation lands and extends similar notice requirements to water management districts; conservation groups and Sen. Smith supported the bill as a transparency measure. Finally, DEP presented its State Park Amenities Report, estimating nearly $759 million in repair and maintenance needs over 10 years and $1.39 billion in contemplated new construction and development across the state park system. The committee took no further action and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Could they be designated?
• So if a designation is challenged, does the court conduct an independent review of the facts, or does
• as a foreign terrorist organization may seek judicial review of the designation in the United States
• be designated.
• , able to be reviewed by the governor and the cabinet in order to make the designation, but not released

Summary: The committee first considered CS/SB 536, which updates Florida’s criminal gang statutes to reflect modern gang recruitment and communication methods, including social media and encrypted messaging. Senator Martin said the bill does not criminalize gang membership, but clarifies definitions used for gang-related enhancements and law enforcement investigations. Members raised concerns about the meaning of “observed in the company” of gang members and possible impacts on businesses and bikers; Martin said the language was not intended to reach ordinary business customers and that the bill still requires other criteria. The committee adopted the amendment and reported the bill favorably after debate, with some members supporting it and others warning it was still too broad. The committee also approved CS/SB 762, allowing cross-jurisdictional assignment of conflict capital cases with cost and reporting requirements, after an amendment emphasizing judicial economy and geographic proximity; the bill was described as a cost-saving measure and was reported favorably. CS/SB 1742, creating a new offense for indecent exposure or sexual acts directed at minors under 16, was amended to align with the House version and to cover observing a child for sexual gratification, then reported favorably. CS/SB 1750, increasing penalties and mandatory minimums for serious sex crimes and child sexual abuse material offenses, was amended to restore some current-law provisions and limit reclassification to offenders who were 18 or older at the time of the offense, then reported favorably. The committee also approved CS/SB 1582 on statewide data sharing for secondhand dealer and pawnbroker transactions, along with its companion public-records bill SB 1792, both described as theft-prevention and law-enforcement tools with confidentiality protections and stakeholder support. CS/SB 500, providing FDLE protective security for major-party nominees for statewide constitutional offices, was also reported favorably after a technical amendment. The longest and most contentious discussion was on CS/SB 1632, which would create a process for Florida to designate foreign and domestic terrorist organizations, restrict courts from enforcing foreign or religious law when it conflicts with state or federal law, and bar public funds from supporting designated organizations. Senator Graal said the bill targets conduct, not belief, and creates due-process protections through written findings, public notice, cabinet action, and judicial review. Senator Smith and Senator Polsky repeatedly questioned whether the bill’s use of terms like “promotion” could chill protected speech, academic debate, protest activity, or legal representation, and whether the designation process could be used politically or against religious and advocacy groups. Graal said promotion was meant to cover support for illegal acts, not mere disagreement or academic speech, and said she was open to clarifying language. Numerous speakers opposed the bill, arguing it was vague, unconstitutional, and likely to be used against Muslim communities, students, nonprofits, and dissenting political speech; a few supporters argued it was needed for public safety and to prevent state support for terrorism. The committee did not take a final vote on CS/SB 1632 in the portion provided, and the transcript ends during public testimony on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, again, the short answer is that we're reviewing these rules.
• It's also premature because we're reviewing these rules.
• those low-impact design pieces.
• design pieces.
• change, or repeal of the rule, based on the review results.

Summary: The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee met on February 3, 2025, with a quorum present and took up three main items. First, the committee considered a large set of recommended objections to Agency for Health Care Administration rules, all centered on sunset provisions stating the rules would expire after five years. AHCA asked for another deferral while it reviewed the rules, arguing the sunset language was a form of self-restraint rather than an invalid exercise of rulemaking authority. Committee leadership disagreed that further delay would resolve the issue and moved to a single vote covering all objections. The motion passed by roll call, and the committee informed AHCA that an objection would be filed unless the agency amended the rules within 30 days. The committee then heard an informational briefing from the Department of Environmental Protection on its Outstanding Florida Springs rule and stormwater rule. DEP explained that it did not prepare a statement of estimated regulatory cost for the springs rule because the proposed standards largely mirror existing water management district rules and the Central Florida Water Initiative framework, so DEP said there was no new regulatory burden. Members asked about permit authority, costs, and whether the rules were functionally different from prior rules. DEP maintained the rules set minimum standards and did not add costs beyond what regulated parties were already doing. DEP also described implementation of the stormwater rule adopted under the 2020 Clean Waterways Act and later ratified by the Legislature in 2024. DEP said the rule was the product of years of workshops and technical advisory committee meetings, and that the final version included lower-cost alternatives, grandfathering, and phased implementation. DEP estimated the rule’s cost at about $2,600 per acre in the revised CERC, while industry witnesses said the real cost could be much higher, especially if land costs are included. A home builders representative argued the estimate understated impacts, while a stormwater engineer said the rule gives more flexible, performance-based tools and could become more cost-effective over time. Finally, Senator Graal presented proposed Chapter 120 changes in SB 108, aimed at tightening and modernizing rulemaking. The proposal would require five-year rule reviews, annual agency reporting, faster notice of proposed rulemaking after authorizing legislation, electronic filing, public access to incorporated materials, clearer tracking of technical changes, and limits on how long rules can remain pending ratification. Members discussed whether the Legislature should be more specific in statutes about rulemaking deadlines and whether agencies should be more accountable when rules stall. No formal action was taken on the Chapter 120 proposals, and the committee adjourned after discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• . review. review.
• is designated.
• </c> um tribal review and consultation. um tribal review and consultation.
• ><c> Unit</c> And the Environmental Review Unit And the Environmental Review Unit reviews<01:37:36.520
• After all of that review, a decision is made whether to designate that trail into the grant-in-aid system

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy