Transcript Highlights:

• Louis County services, to find out: is this working? Is this not working?
• So that's free work.
• I said, what about work?
• <01:16:25.880> to<01:16:26.239> work know that there's a lot of work to work know that
• Like, sometime tell me what's working better and what still isn't working.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Committee met on February 6, 2025, for an update on emergency medical services (EMS) policy and implementation. Senator Seberger described the work of the EMS Task Force, which traveled statewide to hear concerns from providers about staffing, reimbursement, and retention. She said the task force led to the Sprint Medic model and two innovation zones in Otter Tail and St. Louis counties, and she urged continued monitoring and possible reconstitution of the task force to evaluate what is working and what could be expanded statewide. She also said future EMS work should continue to explore alternative response models and telemedicine, but that the most immediate need is additional funding, especially to address unpaid non-transport calls. Dylan Ferguson, director of the newly formed Minnesota Office of Emergency Medical Services, gave a detailed update on the office’s structure and priorities after the transition from the Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board. He described the office’s three divisions, the appointment of deputy directors, the first meetings of the advisory councils, and work on a statewide EMS strategic plan. He also reviewed the $24 million emergency ambulance aid program, explaining its 40-40-20 formula, the emphasis on rural services, the reporting and spending deadlines, and the positive response from ambulance providers. He noted that the $6 million Sprint paramedic grant program is underway, with Otter Tail County moving forward and St. Louis County still finalizing its application. Ferguson also outlined the office’s budget request for modest staffing and contract-cost increases, two rulemaking efforts to update outdated ambulance vehicle standards and expand medication options for basic life support services, and ongoing data collection on workforce needs, violence against EMS providers, and ambulance crashes. He highlighted the paramedic scholarship program administered by the Office of Higher Education, saying nearly 300 scholarships have been awarded. Members and Senator Seberger praised the EMS reforms and emphasized that non-transport calls create significant unreimbursed costs, especially for rural and volunteer services, but no votes or formal committee actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• She worked so hard that literally her hard work and her strong value system made her the first college
• It's where my Midwestern work ethic was ingrained—working in our soybean fields and waiting tables at
• He remembers the forgotten men and women working so hard in this country to make it work.
• I look forward to working with you.
• So certainly, what we need to do is have a review of these programs: what's working, what's not working

Transcript Highlights:

• issue of seclusion to a working group. issue of seclusion to a working group.
• group working group, this working group working group, this working group expires<00:08:18.639>
• <00:08:27.759> must working group, the working group must working group, the working group
• I'd be willing to work with you. I'd be willing to work with you.
• Um, we did a lot of good work together as a working group.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Seclusion Working Group met for its final meeting on January 28 and first approved the prior meeting minutes after correcting two roll-call vote errors involving Miss Woodward. The chair then gave an extended recap of the history of seclusion policy, including the pre-2023 emergency-only framework, the 2023 ban on seclusion for children birth through grade 3, the 2025 introduction of SF 1830 to restore prior law, and the compromise amendment that allowed limited seclusion in grades 1 through 3 with added safeguards. The chair also reviewed the working group’s timeline, noting it had met from August 2025 through January 2026 and was required to submit findings by January 30, 2026. The main substantive discussion focused on the chair’s proposed timeline for eliminating seclusion and an alternative proposal from Mace. Several members criticized a Minnesota Department of Education letter that opposed parts of the working group’s recommendations, arguing it mischaracterized district practices, questioned informed consent and mental health professional provisions, and did not reflect the realities faced by schools. Members supporting the current use of seclusion said districts already use MTSS, PBIS, Ukeru, and other interventions, but still need seclusion in limited emergency situations. They also said the department’s comments felt inflammatory or unsupportive. On the timeline issue, Mace proposed allowing limited seclusion for students in grades 1 through 12 receiving certain special education services until July 1, 2036, with data collection on outcomes and related interventions. Some members supported a “runway” toward elimination, saying it would allow time to build alternatives and avoid an abrupt ban, while others said they could not support including grades 1 through 3 in any extended timeline and preferred elimination sooner. Members also questioned whether MDE currently collects enough data on law enforcement interventions and related outcomes. The meeting ended with continued discussion of the timeline proposal, but no final vote or report approval was recorded in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Some of the finest work, legislative work and policy work and budget work that I've been associated with
• c> and<00:02:33.360> policy<00:02:33.680> work work, legislative work and policy work
• work, legislative work and policy work and<00:02:34.080> budget<00:02:34.400> work<00:
• It doesn't work.
• It doesn't work.

Keywords: 1183, house

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

Transcript Highlights:

• show up for work and do the work of the people of Minnesota, or whether they want to continue with the
• We showed up for work on the day that the law told us to show up for work. We elected a speaker.
• required to show up for work, and 67 of them chose to show up for work.
• We were here to do the work of people. This was very serious work.
• today but there's a lot of skipping work today but there's a lot of work<00:02:46.800> to<00:

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The transcript centers on the Minnesota House organizing itself at the start of session, with House Republicans asserting that 67 members were present, enough to elect a Speaker and begin operating, while 66 Democrats were absent. The speaker and other Republican leaders argued that the House has authority over its own quorum rules, internal rules, and presiding officers, and that the Secretary of State does not have constitutional authority to control House organization or adjourn the chamber. They said the Secretary of State’s adjournment was improper and indicated the dispute would likely be resolved by the Minnesota Supreme Court if challenged. The Speaker said she was honored to serve, emphasized working for Minnesotans, and said committees would begin meeting later in the week. Republicans framed their agenda around public safety, fraud prevention, fiscal restraint, and affordability, and repeatedly called on Democrats to return to the chamber and “get to work.” They also said they were open to continued negotiations, but only if Democrats were reasonable and present. Questions from reporters focused on the legal basis for proceeding after the Secretary of State adjourned the session, the likelihood of court review, and whether Republicans would follow any Supreme Court ruling. The Speaker said they would comply with court decisions but were confident in their position. She also said the House would meet again at noon the next day and that the status of members who did not take the oath in the chamber would be reviewed if they appeared.

Transcript Highlights:

• We worked on 35 properties.
• It's not working. You got it.
• And I saw home hardening work. It literally worked.
• a lot of great work.
• a lot of great work.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• work.
• I worked very well with Dr.
• Again, I want to thank our Chair Bennett for the work, the work of this committee, and the work of those
• who worked on Proposition 4.
• Again, I want to thank Chair Bennett for the work of this committee, and again, the work of those who

Summary: The Assembly Budget Committee held an informational hearing on the September budget package, which included SB 105 and a series of trailer bills covering health, human services, education, resources, child care, transportation, labor, public safety, housing, revenue, background checks, collective bargaining, and a special election. The Department of Finance described the package as largely technical and clarifying, but also responsive to state and federal changes, especially H.R. 1. Key items included roughly $3.3 billion in Proposition 4 climate and environmental spending, $540 million in discretionary greenhouse gas reduction funds, and major responses to H.R. 1 such as CalFresh error-rate mitigation, food bank support, and Medicaid-related changes. Other notable provisions included vaccine policy flexibility, an Abortion Access Fund, a gender-affirming care program, community college basic-needs and aid changes, CEQA and coastal permit exemptions tied to the 2028 Olympics, invasive mussel prevention funding, a civic media program, labor and pension-related provisions, and special election administration changes. Members raised questions and concerns about several parts of the package. There was support for climate, water, transit, offshore wind, food security, and health investments, but also significant criticism of the lack of cleanup language for SB 131 and its advanced manufacturing exemptions, with multiple members saying promised fixes had not materialized and expressing concerns about tribal consultation, labor standards, and environmental protections. Members also questioned the scale and timing of some Proposition 4 allocations, including fairground upgrades, regional conveyance, and a UC Davis alternative protein research center. The Department of Finance said some programs would roll out over time and that certain funding levels reflected current implementation capacity. The hearing also featured discussion of Bay Area transit financing, with Finance saying SB 105 directs the department and CalSTA to examine loan or other financing options rather than immediately providing loans. Members and public commenters also discussed the state’s response to H.R. 1, with advocates supporting food bank, health care, and immunization provisions while warning of ongoing harm to immigrants, foster youth, and other vulnerable groups. Public testimony broadly supported the health, food, water, offshore wind, and golden mussel provisions, while many speakers echoed legislative concerns about SB 131 and urged cleanup action in the next session. No votes were taken because the hearing was informational only, though the chair noted votes on the bills were expected later that night or the next morning.

Transcript Highlights:

• work work together<00:10:43.200> and<00:10:43.399> over<00:10:43.639> the<00:10
• work and to<00:11:38.000> work<00:11:38.680> across<00:11:39.120> the<00:11:39.279
• > we<00:11:43.160> can another to do the best work that we can another to do the best work
• <00:12:18.440> that continue to do the important work that continue to do the important work
• President. good work that has been done under this good work that has been done under this Powers<00:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The work you do is year-round.
• of interest in my work.
• I also work full-time.
• hands-on, amazing work.
• We know what works.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:00:59.239> together caucus uh the need to work together caucus uh the need to work together
• <00:03:33.200> closely they've elected that we work closely they've elected that we work closely
• <00:03:55.159> in excited to continue to work in excited to continue to work in partnership
• You know what, we are going to get to work here, and I hope they work their way through the very difficult
• Thank you very much. agreement that we've been working under agreement that we've been working under

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that that ordinance was worded properly and put a lot of work into working alongside people who care
• that that ordinance was worded properly and put a lot of work working alongside people who care about
• , but not only at their business, they also do work for various... and also work in producing operation
• I'm going to talk about the dangerous work. Our MWRA work is due in a moment.
• We do different types of work. Again, it's not the same as these men and women that work.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service heard testimony on a wide range of retirement classification and benefit bills affecting municipal and state employees. Much of the hearing focused on proposals to move various workers from Group 1 to Group 2 or Group 4, including municipal building officials (H. 2776), MassDOT highway workers (H. 2908/Sousa’s Law), DCF attorneys (H. 2771), probation officers, licensed electricians, drinking water operators (H. 3000/S. 1834), MWRA non-clerical workers (S. 1803), transitional parole officers (H. 2878), Plymouth BCI criminal investigator officers (H. 2975/S. 1863), Beverly fire alarm operators/public safety telecommunicators (S. 1876), Massport pipefitters and refrigeration technicians (H. 2788/S. 1829), and other public safety or hazardous-duty classifications. Witnesses generally argued that their work is physically dangerous, understaffed, or comparable to already higher-classified employees, and several said the changes would help recruitment and retention with little fiscal impact because the affected groups are small. The committee also heard testimony on H. 4508, a home rule petition to grant a disability pension to Boston principal Patricia Lampron. Supporters, including Representative Dan Hunt, Boston city councilors, and Lampron herself, described a severe 2021 assault at the Henderson Inclusion School that left her with lasting physical and psychological injuries and forced her into early retirement. They urged the committee to advance the bill quickly. One witness, Pamela McLaughlin, testified in opposition, arguing the bill would set the wrong precedent and describing alleged prior misconduct by Lampron, and asked that the bill be sent to study. Several witnesses and committee members asked brief questions, mainly about the scope of the bills, whether certain workers were already in higher groups, and the fiscal or precedent concerns. No votes were taken during the hearing. At the end, the chairs announced that testimony was complete, asked whether anyone else wished to speak, and then the committee voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• Francine has worked, we have sort of a war chest of really capable contractors that we're working with
• is currently actively working on.
• We're still working through it.
• Fall, graduating students that will work in those skilled trade work in quantum.
• Also Note that the Senate often does some work and the House does some work.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in the past um, with on the working in the past um, with on the commission<00:07:37.039> works
• And actually, have been working with the folks that we worked with, the Hawaiian cohorts that we worked
• Now I am working with Rep.
• the works of art special fund, right? the works of art special fund, right?
• We don't get that with the commission works that we work with.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We still have a lot of work to do here in our area with regards to road work.
• works.
• I've watched her work.
• And that's hard work. And the thing that I was bothered by in Taos is nobody wants to work.
• Don't worry, I'm working to get something Done, and we did. We worked diligently.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the right to work, the human right to work, in a safe and healthy environment.
• Yeah, so who do you work for? What is the purpose of your department? Who do you work for?
• They do similar work, but not identical work. And they are all paid pretty much the same.
• They do similar work, but not identical work. And they are all paid pretty much the same.
• I know you all have a lot of work to do and you're working really hard.

Summary: The hearing focused on a state audit of Cal/OSHA titled “The Division of Occupational Safety and Health: Process Deficiencies and Staffing Shortages Limit Its Ability to Protect Workers.” Committee leaders and the audit team described serious workplace tragedies, argued that California’s worker protections are not being adequately enforced, and said the audit was prompted by concerns that Cal/OSHA was too often relying on letters instead of inspections, delaying investigations, and closing cases without enough documentation. Members repeatedly emphasized that the issue was not just staffing, but also outdated policies, weak oversight, and inconsistent enforcement. State Auditor Grant Parks said the audit found a 32% vacancy rate in 2023-24, heavy reliance on hard-copy files, outdated or unclear policies, and inconsistent decision-making in complaints, accidents, citations, and fine reductions. He said Cal/OSHA conducted on-site inspections in only about 20% of complaints, used letter investigations more than 80% of the time, often lacked evidence that hazards were corrected, and sometimes failed to inspect serious injury cases on time. The audit also found weak documentation for fine calculations and settlement reductions, with some penalties reduced substantially without clear explanations. Parks said the agency had accepted the findings and would provide progress updates later in the year. Committee members pressed the auditor on vacancy rates, the use of letter investigations, the low rate of criminal referrals, and whether fines were being reduced too often. Cal/OSHA and DIR officials responded that the vacancy rate had fallen to 12% partly because 66 vacant positions were eliminated in a statewide budget reduction and partly because of hiring; they said 126 people had been hired in the first half of the year. They also said they had hired a policy writer, were updating several policies, were planning periodic internal audits, and were developing a new data management system expected to go live in late 2026 or early 2027. On fines, officials said Title 8 sets base penalties and allows adjustments based on factors like employer size, history, and good faith, with appeals and informal conferences also affecting final amounts. No votes or formal actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then in 2020, we worked with...
• We worked with other local groups right up to the last minute and worked with the Bureau itself.
• We also work with school districts.
• And how do you work on the Block Boundary Program? How does that work?
• We work with them because we have to work under Title 13.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on census preparation, focusing first on testimony from U.S. Census Bureau staff James Whitehorn and Andrea Grace Johnson. They described the Bureau’s decade-long geographic and redistricting programs, including the Boundary and Annexation Survey, School District Review Program, Participant Statistical Area Program, and Local Update of Census Addresses (LUCA), along with the Block Boundary Suggestion Project and voting district collection. They emphasized that Massachusetts has been a strong partner in these efforts and explained how the Bureau is using updated street data, building footprints, machine learning, and change detection to improve address lists and track new housing. Whitehorn also reviewed the 2030 redistricting data program, the legal basis for it under PL 94-171, the role of state nonpartisan liaisons, and the expected timeline for data delivery. He noted that OMB’s revised race and ethnicity standards will merge those questions into one and add a Middle Eastern/North African category. Committee members asked about the new standards, state contacts, and how boundary updates are submitted, and the witnesses said they would provide the slide deck and contact information. Wendy Underhill and Helen Brewer of NCSL then testified about why census preparation matters for states, stressing its impact on data, federal funding, and political representation. They outlined optional steps states can take before 2030, including staying in touch with Census Bureau staff, identifying state and local personnel involved in census work, supporting local participation in Bureau programs, and creating complete count committees or commissions. They cited Massachusetts’s prior complete count committee and grantmaking efforts as an example and said such efforts can improve self-response and overall accuracy. They also noted that state legislatures can act as conveners and trusted messengers, and they discussed broader issues such as privacy protections, differential privacy, budget uncertainty, and the possibility of future litigation or a citizenship question. Secretary of State William Galvin then gave extended remarks on Massachusetts’s 2020 census experience and the need to prepare early for 2030. He said the state faced major challenges in 2020 from the pandemic, litigation, and rhetoric about citizenship, and that Massachusetts relied heavily on local records, university data, and community outreach to document residents, especially students and non-native-born populations. He argued that the state should strengthen local recordkeeping now through LUCA, annual resident lists, assessors’ and zoning records, and other local data sources, and he urged support for a proposed $500,000 appropriation for census-related grants and technical assistance. Galvin said better preparation is needed because housing patterns, population shifts, and local administrative capacity have changed since 2020, and he emphasized that the goal is to improve the completeness of the records the Census Bureau will use in 2030.

Transcript Highlights:

• It doesn't work that way.
• their work and that will all be worked their work and that will all be worked out<00:25:50.640><
• They work They work in our communities.
• So, we got more work to do. it done. So, we got more work to do.
• c> staff work with our team, work with the staff work with our team, work with the staff on<00:41

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the workforce that works with them.
• Why do you do this work and how is the work of each person in the department really important to help
• So we're still working with that stipend, still really working to recruit social workers.
• Do they work 10 hours? Do they work as many hours as they want? Do they get overtime?
• We're working closely with them.

Transcript Highlights:

• actually have the people who do the work actually have the people who do the work on<00:12:22.959
• their high four or 50% work, 50% time. their high four or 50% work, 50% time.
• So if we return someone to work at 80% of the stated salary, the contribution rate for that work would
• public works system, places like that. public works system, places like that.
• if they were still in the working age. if they were still in the working age.

Keywords: Finance - Room 216, 2 February, 2026; 3:00 PM, 925, all

Summary: The committee first heard a bill concerning tax increment financing (TIFs). The sponsor explained that the measure would not change the existing financing structure, but would add an optional arrangement cities could negotiate with developers: a revenue bond guaranteed by taxes generated from the development. The goal was to let developers guarantee the bond and access funds sooner on the front end of a project rather than waiting to see whether tax revenues meet projections. After no questions, the committee adopted a motion that the title was sufficient and reported the bill out do pass as a committee substitute. The next bill, Senate Bill 2873, came from the Department of Revenue and dealt with enforcement of the state’s vape registry law. The sponsor said the bill fills a gap left by prior legislation by creating a statutory forfeiture process for seized products valued at $20,000 or less, including notice, a right to contest, and rules for disposition of forfeited property. The committee then moved the bill title sufficient and do pass, and it was reported out. Senate Bill 2894 addressed local improvement projects funded in 2021 through 2024 that had not been executed or had unspent money remaining. The bill would require return of certain funds after a memorandum of understanding was not signed or after three years with unspent balances, require remittance of unspent interest, allow withholding of some city diversion or state aid road funds for noncompliance, and require periodic status reports to the Legislative Budget Office. The sponsor also offered an amendment giving entities 60 days from the bill’s effective date to request a one-time six-month extension; the amendment and the bill both received favorable votes and were reported out. Senate Bill 2910 would require employers in the PERS system to settle the books if a unit of government or other employer terminates participation. Senate Bill 2911 proposed a new return-to-work option for PERS retirees, shortening the separation period from 90 days to 30 days and allowing certain retirees to return to public employment at up to 80% of the stated salary, with employer-paid retirement contributions and possible health insurance support. The sponsor said the bill would exclude elected officials, K-12 superintendents, and IHL/community college administrators, and he discussed the bill’s expected effect on PERS funding with questions from members about actuarial impact and whether the proposal would affect existing retirement rules. Both bills were discussed but the transcript excerpt does not show final committee action on Senate Bill 2911.

Transcript Highlights:

• This has been in the works for a This has been in the works for a number of years, so getting that biological
• So we worked with it...
• So the next steps from the body of work, we are working to complete an updated cost estimate when we,
• once we have those... ...of work.
• And then, you know, once they complete their work, you may not have more work in that field.

Summary: The Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee met for a work session and public hearing on the Interstate 5 bridge replacement program. Program staff outlined major milestones, including the recent biological opinion, the Coast Guard’s opening of a public comment period on the Navigation Impact Report, expected decisions in early 2026 on navigational clearance and the final supplemental environmental impact statement, and a possible amended record of decision in 2026. They also discussed the Bridge Investment Program grant amendment deadline, the need for an initial finance plan, and ongoing community outreach and contractor engagement. Greg Johnson announced he was stepping down as program administrator, and Carly Francis introduced herself as interim administrator. A large portion of the meeting focused on design and cost questions. Staff said the program is studying fixed and movable spans, single- and double-deck configurations, and one versus two auxiliary lanes, with final recommendations to be made through the federal environmental process. They said the Coast Guard’s decision is central to what bridge configuration is permittable and to the timing of the updated cost estimate, which has not yet been released. Members pressed for more detail on cost drivers, potential impacts to businesses upriver, and whether the states would need to seek additional funding. Staff said they had reached agreements with four impacted river users, but the underlying evaluation materials are protected and not publicly releasable. The committee also reviewed transit-related questions. Staff explained that light rail remains part of the modified locally preferred alternative and that ridership and operations estimates are being updated using federal modeling methods. They said projected opening-day transit operations and maintenance costs have dropped from an earlier estimate of $21.8 million to about $10.3 million annually because the current model assumes lower frequency, with Oregon and Washington shares split by geography and fare recovery. Members raised concerns about TriMet’s financial stability and the need for a funding plan by fall 2027, ahead of a planned federal transit funding application in fall 2028. During public testimony, several speakers criticized the delay in releasing a new cost estimate and argued the project scope should be reduced if costs continue to rise. Testifiers from City Observatory and the Just Crossing Alliance said the project appears to be avoiding bad news, urged the committee to consider scope reductions, and questioned whether the active transportation and freeway components align with the project’s core purpose. The meeting ended with thanks to Johnson for his service and a transition to public hearing testimony.