Transcript Highlights:

• So that landowner has to be present for any negotiations.
• So once again, good-faith negotiations.
• So that landowner has to be present for any negotiations.
• Such negotiations shall include no with the landowner or the representatives, such negotiations shall
• So once again, good faith negotiations.

Committee: House Natural Resources & Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• I consider this to be a part of good-faith negotiations.
• You're deemed to pass the good-faith negotiation test in the statute.
• Leave us flexible, leave us a way to go, leave us a way to negotiate.
• Because I think it's almost axiomatic rule of government that any, negotiate.
• Sometimes for negotiation, sometimes because they just went dark.

Committee: House Special Committee on Rural Issues

Transcript Highlights:

• And in that, yeah, we're going to have to have some negotiations, just as you do in here all the time
• Colorado River negotiations, because it's time for people to actually start paying attention to this
• Why are they so scared of the public finding out what's going to happen if we lose these negotiations
• , there are the Colorado River negotiations, but perhaps not put it in a way that would scare voters.
• We are negotiating with seven states for the Colorado River, and we do have solutions, but with this

Bills: HB2099 , HB2263 , HB2264 , HB2330 , HB2341 , HB2492 , HB2757 , HB2782 , HB2843 , HB2889 , HB2912 , HB2915 , HB2918 , HB4025 , HB4100 , HCR2020 , HCR2057

Committees: House Natural Resources, Energy & Water , House House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee of Reference

Keywords: water storage, long-term storage credits, groundwater management, drought contingency, Arizona water regulations, Colorado River, replenishment, groundwater savings facility, groundwater storage, underground water storage, active management area, irrigation non-expansion area, Arizona water law, water rights, water replenishment, recharge, water conservation district, multi-county water conservation district, CAP water, Central Arizona Project

Transcript Highlights:

• Why didn't he start negotiating with that?
• But now, since you weren't invited to the party of negotiations, you're upset.
• Somebody should have informed you that these negotiations were going on.
• And that is why he iced the amount of the negotiations once again.
• First of all, it was good negotiations with the governor. We all came up with a 4% increase.

Transcript Highlights:

• They don't negotiate the contracts. They're not in leadership positions.
• And then you allow for Aaron Rodgers to negotiate above the P5 salary or Lamar Jackson, right?
• But again, athletes are able to negotiate above based off of their talent and their value.
• Is to ensure that players actually have their own organization to negotiate those rules.
• We negotiate those deals. We put a contract in front of them that they sign.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on name, image, and likeness (NIL) and financial literacy for student athletes, with members framing California as a national leader on NIL but emphasizing the need for stronger protections and more consistent education. The chair and witnesses discussed how NIL opportunities now include both third-party endorsement deals and school revenue-sharing arrangements, and how the current landscape varies widely by institution, leaving athletes with a patchwork of rules and support. Several witnesses argued that student athletes, especially younger ones and those from low-income or first-generation backgrounds, are vulnerable to predatory contracts, tax problems, and pressure from family, agents, or lenders. The first panel featured Tyree Dillingham and Brandon Copeland, who called for standardized financial literacy, better guardrails against predatory NIL advances, and a player-led association or similar collective voice for athletes. They described examples of athletes not understanding paychecks, taxes, or contract terms, and warned that some schools and collectives blur the line between education and marketing. Copeland also argued that college athletics now functions like a professional business and that athletes need representation and a standard contract structure to protect them. The second panel focused on lived experience, including testimony from attorney Anthony Coronae and student athlete Mikey Williams. Coronae described reviewing a contract that he said functioned like a predatory loan disguised as marketing support, with the company taking exclusive rights to Williams’ NIL and requiring repayment far beyond the advance. Williams testified that he signed without a lawyer, later lost endorsements, scholarship, and housing stability, and only later learned the contract’s consequences. He said a required financial literacy course at Sacramento State helped him begin to understand budgeting, taxes, and contracts, and he urged the legislature to require legal review or stronger safeguards for athletes. The third panel, from San Diego State University, highlighted a more structured institutional model. Athletic director Brendan Hill described a mandatory four-year life-skills program that includes financial literacy, resume workshops, internships, and branding education, while student athlete Sloan Benchoff said the program helped her manage money and prepare for post-college life. Witnesses agreed that support is uneven across schools, that some agents and lenders are exploiting athletes, and that California should consider standardized financial education and agent regulation while also being careful not to create rules that unintentionally restrict athlete rights. No formal vote or bill action was taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• One thing to add, I forgot to add on, was one of the priorities as we came out of the negotiations.
• Forest and Fish Law was approved as a federal habitat conservation plan in 2006 and was a negotiated
• Were the negotiations difficult? Absolutely. Extraordinarily complex.
• We negotiated the agreement.
• Call a 90-day negotiation, bring some of the principals in, get them centered in on the issue.

Summary: The committee held a work session on the history, implementation, and current challenges of Washington’s Forest and Fish law and related Habitat Conservation Plan. Testimony from tribal representatives Jim Peters and David Herrera, former Rep. Jim Buck, and mediator Tim Thompson described the original timber, fish, and wildlife negotiations as a broad, collaborative effort intended to balance salmon and habitat protection with a viable timber industry. DNR’s Sabur Jawad outlined the program’s statutory framework, the roles of DNR, Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, tribes, local governments, landowners, and the Forest Practices Board, and explained that changes to aquatic-resource rules can come through adaptive management, legislative direction, or court orders. He also described the permitting and enforcement system, the programmatic HCP, road maintenance and abandonment work, and the adaptive management process, including the long-running NP stream-buffer studies and resulting rulemaking timeline. Agency and stakeholder testimony emphasized accomplishments such as decades of HCP coverage, annual compliance monitoring, road and fish-barrier improvements, small forest landowner assistance programs, and the completion of numerous adaptive management studies. DNR’s Katie Allen said the program has strong successes but also faces resource-intensive implementation, rising costs, and watershed-wide pressures beyond forestry, and she pointed to a State Auditor review that produced 13 recommendations now being addressed through an action plan and a structured decision-making model. Washington Farm Forestry Association executive director Elaine O’Neill said small forest landowners supported the agreement expecting assistance and flexibility, but argued the balance has shifted toward more protection and less practical consideration of rural vitality and property rights. Washington Forest Protection Association executive director Jason Spadero said the agreement has produced measurable environmental gains and regulatory predictability, but criticized the recent NP rule and urged continued science-based, economically balanced management. In the final discussion, tribal representatives said the collaborative, consensus-based process still works in some areas, but that the principals need to be re-engaged more directly and periodically to restore accountability and trust. They said the adaptive management process and funding remain important, but expressed concern that consensus has broken down in some recent rulemaking and that side negotiations or outside pressure can undermine the original agreement. Members asked how to restore the collaborative model; Peters suggested renewed commitment from the principal parties and more regular high-level meetings, while Herrera echoed the need to implement the auditor’s recommendations. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• IGRA sets the framework in which tribes and the states can negotiate Class III gaming on tribal lands
• IGRA also outlines what the tribe and the state can negotiate into compacts, and these are the topics
• that negotiations can occur on.
• When negotiations are requested by a tribe, IGRA requires a state to negotiate in good faith.
• I understand it was a pleasant and principled negotiation.

Committee: House State Government & Tribal Relations

Transcript Highlights:

• IGRA sets the framework in which tribes and the states can negotiate Class III gaming on tribal lands
• IGRA also outlines what the tribe and the state can negotiate into compacts, and these are the topics
• that negotiations can occur on.
• When negotiations are requested by a tribe, IGRA requires a state to negotiate in good faith.
• I understand it was a pleasant and principled negotiation.

Summary: The committee held a special hearing on a tentative amended, restated gaming compact between the State of Washington and the Squaxin Island Tribe. Washington State Gambling Commission Director Tina Griffin said the state and tribe had reached tentative agreement after collaborative negotiations, and explained the approval process: public comment and a commission vote with ex officio legislative members, followed by governor review, tribal submission to the Secretary of the Interior, and Federal Register publication before the compact becomes effective. Squaxin Island representative Ray Peters said the tribe supports the amendments, describing them as clarifications that improve casino regulation and align the compact with other state compacts while supporting jobs and funding for housing, health care, and other services. Commission staff member Johnny Bray walked through the compact changes, including restating several appendices, removing the CX2 addendum, and adding new appendices on limitations and electronic table games. He said the limitations appendix raises certain wagering and facility ceilings, including higher table-game and tribal lottery system limits, authorization for credit for qualified patrons, and screening requirements for high-limit areas. He also described the new electronic table games appendix, which allows wager limits up to $500 and a nine-to-one ratio of electronic games to gaming stations, along with additional responsible-gaming commitments. Members asked about the location of the tribe and whether higher limits could increase problem gambling; staff said the limits are ceilings, other tribes already have similar authorizations, and the tribe must screen patrons and implement protections. The committee then held a work session with Secretary of State Steve Hobbs and staff on the office’s fiscal note process. Tim Gallivan explained the office’s three-day turnaround, workload-based FTE estimates, use of assumptions and ranges, and how fiscal notes include both salary/benefit costs and broader operating costs such as enterprise support and administration allocations. He also described how litigation costs are estimated in coordination with the Attorney General, including when costs are known, estimated from comparable cases, or marked indeterminate. Members questioned whether fiscal notes can reflect policy disagreements and how assumptions differ across agencies, and discussed examples involving the Washington Voting Rights Act and ranked choice voting. Hobbs and staff said fiscal notes are based on bill language, not intent, and that early sponsor contact can help refine estimates. No votes were taken in the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And they refused the entire session, the entire negotiation. So, they should read the bills.
• our negotiations we fought over,<00:13:09.080><c> including</c><00:13:10.080><c> the</c><00:13:10.640
• and landed in a place that negotiation and landed in a place that stabilizes<00:13:51.720><c> health
• I mean, you're part of those negotiations.
• </c> mean, you're part of those negotiations. mean, you're part of those negotiations.

Summary: Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy said the 2026 session ended with major accomplishments despite frustration over what did not pass. She highlighted a $1.2 billion bonding bill, housing and rental investments, property tax reductions, support for HCMC and distressed hospitals, public safety and crime victim funding, IT modernization, and fraud-prevention measures. She also said the Senate pushed a tab fee holiday, though she criticized Republicans for delaying its start until January, and described the session as focused on a “fair deal” for Minnesotans facing higher costs. Murphy said some of the most difficult work involved human services and fraud oversight. She said lawmakers created an independent inspector general office, funded the Attorney General’s Medicaid fraud unit, added training and electronic visit measures, and included payment-withholding language with due-process protections and continuity-of-care safeguards. She said the Senate tried to balance fraud enforcement with preserving access to Medicaid-funded services, and emphasized that legislators must continue oversight and follow audit recommendations. She also expressed deep disappointment that a comprehensive gun violence prevention package did not pass the House, saying it included prevention, intervention, harm reduction, school safety, and mental health provisions. She said the package was rejected by House Republicans and that she would keep fighting for it. On immigration enforcement, she said the Senate proposed protections against ICE actions but could not get them enacted. She also discussed campaign strategy, saying Democrats would defend frontline seats and emphasize health care, housing, jobs, and affordability, while continuing to support roads, bridges, and transit.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, so we're in contract negotiation now with them to try to finalize those details and we should be
• Um, so we're in contract negotiation now with them to try to finalize those details and we should be
• Um, so we're in contract negotiation now with them to try to finalize those details and we should be
• </c><00:03:51.280><c> them</c><00:03:51.440><c> to</c> contract negotiation now with them to contract
• And the proposer was amenable to negotiating those fees and the collateral.

Bills: SJ0001

Committee: Senate Minerals, Business & Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:

• For one, the handler or processor must negotiate.
• The act also establishes timelines for the negotiations.
• There's no negotiation. And so you find this out literally days before harvest.
• So we just need to be able to sit down and negotiate a fair price.
• So we need to be able to negotiate a fair price and have some...

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on Senate Bill 5816, which would add juice grapes to Washington’s Agricultural Marketing and Fair Practices Act. Staff explained that the bill would allow juice grape producers to form an accredited association to negotiate with processors under the same timelines used for pears, and the prime sponsor said the measure was intended to help growers obtain fairer prices. A grape grower testified that Washington producers face a small number of buyers, little real negotiation, and prices far below New York’s, arguing the bill would give growers a way to bargain collectively. The public hearing closed with 47 people noted in support and one in opposition. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5971, which would create a green fertilizer incentive program for low-carbon nitrogen fertilizer production and use in Washington. Staff described the bill as directing WSDA to establish the program, adopt rules by 2028, and report to the Legislature, with costs shown in the fiscal note. The prime sponsor and several supporters, including Atlas Agro, a port representative, labor, NRDC, WSDA, the League of Women Voters, and the Washington State Potato Commission, said the bill could reduce greenhouse gas emissions, support local manufacturing and jobs, stabilize fertilizer supply and prices for farmers, and help Washington compete for federal clean hydrogen tax credits. WSDA said the program was implementable with consultation and that the Climate Commitment Act could be a funding source, though it noted rulemaking costs. The committee then held a work session on commercial shellfish fee assessments after the Department of Health adopted major fee increases for shellfish licensing and certification. Shellfish growers and association representatives said the increases—described as ranging from roughly 233% to 789% overall, with some individual licenses rising much more—would hit small and family farms hardest, could force closures, and were based on a fee structure they said is outdated and not tied well to production. DOH explained that the program has long relied on general fund support, that federal shellfish safety requirements must be maintained, and that the new fees are intended to move the program toward full cost recovery after years without increases. The department said it had used a phased approach, reopened rulemaking to look for a fairer structure, and would continue working with industry and the Legislature; no vote was taken during the work session.

Transcript Highlights:

• And right now under the WIOA law, it actually asks these local boards to negotiate in 10 different ways
• And right now under the WIOA law, it actually asks these local boards to negotiate in 10 different ways
• And right now under the WIOA law, it actually asks these local boards to negotiate in 10 different ways
• And right now under the WIOA law, it actually asks these local boards to negotiate in 10 different ways
• And right now under the WIOA law, it actually asks these local boards to negotiate in 10 different ways

Committee: All ALC-HOSPITAL, MEDICAID, & DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The meeting focused on a presentation by the Alliance for Opportunity on its audit of Arkansas’s workforce and public assistance systems. Rachel Barkley, Mason Bishop, and Les Ford described a fragmented structure in which workforce programs, human services programs, and education/training programs operate in silos. They cited Arkansas data showing about 202,000 prime-age adults not engaged in the workforce, more than a million people on Medicaid/CHIP, and over 10% of the population on SNAP, while noting the state’s low labor force participation rate. They also said Arkansas has built some useful infrastructure, including integrated eligibility systems and data-sharing capacity, but argued that these tools are not yet being used to create a coordinated path to work. The presenters said local workforce boards administer only a small share of workforce dollars, mainly WIOA Title I funds, and argued that one-stop centers are funded largely by WIOA and Wagner-Peyser while other programs contribute little to service delivery. They said site visits showed frontline staff often had to “Google” community resources because they lacked referral tools, and that customers and employers alike must navigate multiple doors and agencies. They emphasized that administrative costs, duplicated staffing, separate buildings, and multiple case management systems reduce the amount of money reaching training and direct services. They also noted that most training dollars were going to limited offerings such as CDL training, and that human services employment-and-training funds were largely going to administration or subgrantees rather than direct participant support. As a solution, the presenters recommended a “one door to work” model built around three areas: a consolidated administrative structure, integrated service delivery, and integrated finances. They proposed creating a single state workforce agency that could include some public assistance functions, using a statewide eligibility and intake system, expanding case management through tools like Hope Hub, and adopting a unified cost-allocation model similar to Utah’s. They said these changes could be pursued through legislation, executive action, and federal waivers, and argued that savings would come mainly from reduced management, buildings, and duplicated systems rather than frontline layoffs. Committee members asked about costs, staffing, rural access, business engagement, and whether other states had adopted similar models. The presenters pointed to Utah, Louisiana, and Virginia as examples or partial examples, and said they would provide additional data, including a final report at the end of the month and follow-up information on Utah outcomes.

Transcript Highlights:

• They negotiate, they persuade, they reach a price.
• They can use the threat as a negotiating tool.
• It has to be voluntary giving or negotiated, not forced.
• The parties continue to negotiate, and the landowner is paid a negotiated price, which typically significantly
• Property rights are not negotiable.

Committee: House Natural Resources & Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• A concessions contract may be entered by negotiation of adequate compensation.
• So the big-ticket purchases we're doing, you know, we do engage in contract negotiations.
• In some cases, in a lot of cases, the vendor will not negotiate those with us.
• So the big ticket purchases we're doing, you know, we do engage in contract negotiations.
• In some cases, in a lot of cases, the vendor will not negotiate those with us.

Committee: Joint Legislative Task Force on Government Efficiency

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, there's going to be a lot of discussions and negotiations on a variety of topics as we move towards
• and negotiations on a variety<00:08:31.040><c> of</c><00:08:31.120><c> topics</c><00:08:32.120><c> uh
• on a variety of subjects as negotiations on a variety of subjects as we<00:09:55.320><c> move</c><00
• </c> maybe he would be willing to negotiate maybe he would be willing to negotiate on<00:10:13.440><c
• Is bonding something you guys would leverage negotiations on, either guns or ICE bills?

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm not in charge of negotiating contracts with our LEAs personally.
• The deal that we negotiated with them said that we would get to keep 60% instead of 44.
• And if we don't negotiate the deal, they get nothing.
• And so there's probably some similarity, but they're all negotiated individually.
• And so there's probably some similarity, but they're all negotiated individually.

Summary: The Careers and Workforce Subcommittee met to discuss apprenticeship education and workforce development, with panelists from Santa Fe College, the Florida Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Contractors Association, ABC East Coast/ABC Institute, and Piper Fire Protection. Members heard that apprenticeships are growing in Florida, with panelists emphasizing that these programs offer paid, tuition-free training, progressive wage increases, and strong job placement in high-demand fields such as HVAC, electrical, fire protection, and construction. Panelists also described efforts to expand into new areas like accounting, cybersecurity, network infrastructure, and surgical technology, while stressing the importance of aligning programs with employer demand. A major topic was funding and reimbursement. Panelists said the current model is complicated and often leaves providers with only a portion of the funds appropriated for apprentices, with one provider saying reimbursement can be as low as 44% and others describing caps, contract delays, and inconsistent CareerSource support. They argued that more of the money should reach training providers, that small businesses need more support to participate, and that transparency and contract reform could help expand enrollment and improve program quality. Several also raised barriers such as instructor approval rules, paperwork, and facility costs. Members asked about admission criteria, program costs, employer incentives, outreach to high school students, and whether apprenticeships should have greater access to other funding sources. Panelists said the main requirements are being employed and willing to work and learn, and that outreach through schools, career fairs, community partnerships, and public awareness campaigns is essential. They also discussed articulation agreements that can provide college credit for apprenticeship training and suggested statewide credit recognition and possible direct funding to providers as policy improvements. No votes were taken, and the meeting ended with the subcommittee adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• Unions can't negotiate in the dark.
• Last year, the Animation Guild completed contract negotiations.
• If they want to, then they can just negotiate a license.
• If they want to, then they can just negotiate a license.
• Are you going to be able to negotiate a fair deal? Maybe not.

Summary: The Senate Judiciary Committee and Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee held an informational hearing at Stanford on the intersection of artificial intelligence, copyright, transparency, and California’s creative economy. Chairs and members emphasized that the hearing was not on a specific bill and would not include a vote, but was intended to gather information ahead of the next legislative session. Opening remarks stressed the tension between protecting artists’ intellectual property and allowing AI innovation to continue in California, with several members noting the state’s outsized role in both the tech and entertainment sectors. The first panel featured Professor Pamela Samuelson and Stanford researcher Rishi Bommasani. Samuelson reviewed the current copyright litigation landscape, including dozens of lawsuits against generative AI companies, and explained that fair use will likely be central, especially the market-effects factor. She said state action is constrained by federal copyright preemption, but transparency, privacy, and deepfake-related regulation may still be possible. Bommasani described widespread opacity around training data among major California AI companies, discussed AB 2013 and the EU AI Act as transparency models, and warned that disclosure rules face enforcement and design challenges. Members asked about market dilution theories, open-source models, user data, machine unlearning, and what California can do without conflicting with federal law. The second panel included SAG-AFTRA board member Jason George, Animation Guild president Danny Lynn, and OpenAI copyright counsel Mark Gray. George and Lynn argued that AI training on performers’ and artists’ work without consent or compensation is already harming careers, devaluing creative labor, and enabling digital replicas and style imitation; both supported stronger transparency so rights holders can identify when their work is used and negotiate licenses. Gray said AI is increasingly being used as a productivity tool and pointed to growing partnerships between AI companies and publishers, studios, and record labels, while acknowledging concerns about deepfakes and specific harmful uses. Committee members pressed him on labeling AI-generated content, training-data disclosure, and how to protect creators while still encouraging innovation. No formal action or vote was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• DJJ is negotiating with Wellpath to ensure that the allocated funding is wisely and efficiently used
• ><c> Wellpath</c><00:42:51.839><c> to</c> is negotiating uh with Wellpath to is negotiating uh with Wellpath
• </c> the document and negotiate the pricing. the document and negotiate the pricing.
• We're negotiating with Wellpath. Yes, sir.
• </c> started negotiating with with Well Path? started negotiating with with Well Path?

Summary: The committee heard from the Department of Corrections first about Wellpath’s medical services contract and the contractor’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy. DOC officials said Wellpath’s reorganization plan was confirmed in May 2025, the contract was automatically assumed, and services have continued without lapses. They said DOC has not seen any reduction in care, staffing problems, or known impact on Kentucky operations, and that DOC and health services staff meet with Wellpath almost weekly. Members asked whether “emergence” meant discharge from bankruptcy; staff clarified that Wellpath has not yet been discharged and is still in the process of paying debts. The discussion then shifted to the Department of Juvenile Justice’s proposed high-acuity juvenile mental health treatment facility. DJJ said the facility is still in the conceptual and preliminary programming stage, with no full design funding yet and no entry into the formal A/B process with DECA. The proposed facility would have 24 beds total, split into 16 clinical beds and 8 assessment/stabilization beds, and would need to separate males and females as well as high- and low-risk youth under Senate Bill 162. Officials said the concept was developed with DJJ and CHFS mental health staff and outside design experts, and that the project was submitted in the capital plan for consideration. Members questioned the need for the facility, the estimated construction and staffing costs, and whether the state has enough youth to justify it. DJJ said the number of youth needing this level of care changes frequently, that they currently have one youth in Pennsylvania and typically send one to five youth out of state each year, and that out-of-state placement is increasingly difficult. Officials argued that a dedicated facility would reduce delays, keep youth closer to home, and avoid the need to retrofit multiple detention centers. Some members expressed concern that the projected operating costs seemed high compared with the small number of current out-of-state placements, and asked for more information on annual out-of-state spending and the number of youth who would qualify for the facility.

Transcript Highlights:

• But in negotiations they never ever offered us step increases.
• two years ago when we were negotiations two years ago when we were negotiating<01:05:05.400><c> this
• </c><01:05:23.400><c> it</c> and be like hey uh just go negotiate it and be like hey uh just go negotiate
• ><c> never</c><01:05:25.400><c> ever</c> but in negotiations they never ever but in negotiations they
• So if it’s in the contract right now, that’s part of the negotiation topic.

Summary: The Committee on Education met on January 30 and heard testimony on several bills, beginning with an announcement asking testifiers and members to keep remarks brief because of weather. The vice chair also explained that HB 440, relating to immigration issues in schools and state hospitals, was removed from the agenda because the proposal would not create meaningful legal protections and immigration policy is governed by federal law. The committee then moved through a series of education-related measures, with testimony largely from the Department of Education, the School Facilities Authority, the Attorney General’s office, unions, advocacy groups, and individual testifiers. On HB 330, concerning school impact fees, the School Facilities Authority supported the bill as aligning policy with implementation, while the Tax Foundation of Hawaii said the fee accounts have accumulated large balances, including more than $20 million in impact fee funds and nearly $9 million from predecessor fair-share contributions, and urged that collected money be used rather than left idle. DOE said it would follow up on the balance and why it was not being used. On HB 1188, dealing with workforce housing, DOE and the Charter School Commission offered comments or support, the Attorney General suggested clarifying the phrase “within commuting distance” by using a mileage standard and adding repayment language, and HSTA, HGEA, and others supported the bill, with HSTA saying teachers need housing to be able to live and work in Hawaii. On HB 624 and HB 625, both related to school psychologists, DOE said it would participate in a work group on the pathway bill and supported the incentive program bill; school psychologists and related groups supported the measures, while one testifier said DOE should not lead the work group alone because school psychologists may work in many education settings beyond DOE schools. The committee also heard HB 1314 on youth mental health in schools. DOE described its student support process, universal screening tools, and behavioral health services, saying schools already identify and respond to concerns and that staff are trained to report issues, while the Attorney General warned the bill could expose schools to liability and recommended a broad liability waiver. Testimony was mixed, with several supporters and one opponent. On HB 616, concerning school safety and harassment protections for educational workers, the Attorney General sought clarifying amendments on harassment definitions, temporary restraining order costs, and paid leave, while HSTA, HGEA, and individual teachers strongly supported the bill, describing harassment incidents and arguing for a standardized statewide response. DOE said it already has reporting pathways, visitor codes of conduct, trespass notices, and an ethics hotline, but acknowledged implementation varies by school and that staff can escalate concerns if needed. The committee also began hearing HB 88 on a three-year pilot program for athletic travel, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s testimony is completed or any votes are taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• All three of those distances, though, can be negotiated with an adjacent landowner.
• So, ...had they been able to negotiate some of these setbacks alongside of those neighbors.
• Certainly in Ford's case, or any large manufacturer, that was negotiated up front.
• Just so you know, we’ve negotiated this. We’re not trying to catch scrappers.
• We have negotiated. At one time, I think we were afraid we might double up some penalties.

Committee: House Utilities