Transcript Highlights:

• </c> which is a resolution authorizing remote which is a resolution authorizing remote remote<00:10:22.000
• those votes will be recorded as remote votes.
• one of their allotted remote using one of their allotted remote voting<00:12:59.040><c> days.
• Jennifer from um the testimony of Dr.
• We also heard testimony that surgeries.

Transcript Highlights:

• So today we'll hear testimony on a range of bills focused on housing production.
• If you are testifying remotely, hopefully you've received the Teams link, and written testimony should
• I look forward again to hearing all of the testimony. Thank you.
• The two bills I mentioned at the beginning of my testimony do just that.
• Brunson, for her testimony, I thought it was great.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Housing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing opened a hybrid hearing focused on housing production bills, with Chairs Julian Cyr and Rich Haggerty emphasizing Massachusetts’ housing shortage and the need to produce more than 200,000 units over the next decade. The committee then heard testimony on a wide range of proposals, including social housing, starter homes and the “missing middle,” accessory dwelling units (ADUs), single-stair residential buildings, permanent affordability homeownership, and housing for people with disabilities. Several witnesses framed the bills as tools to expand supply, lower costs, and address racial and generational wealth gaps. Representative Connolly testified for H. 1478 on the Massachusetts Social Housing Program, describing publicly owned, mixed-income housing financed through a revolving loan fund. Senator Feeney testified for S. 989 on missing middle starter homes, arguing for zoning changes, incentives, and affordability tools to support smaller starter homes and duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes. Multiple witnesses, including housing advocates, real estate representatives, and local officials, supported the ADU trust fund bill and the single-stair study bill, saying they would reduce barriers, support homeowners, and enable more family-sized and infill housing. Some witnesses opposed bills they said would weaken ADU reforms or add new restrictions, while others urged broader deregulation to speed production. A major portion of the hearing focused on H. 1576/S. 1010, the Homes for Lasting Affordability bill, which would create a permanent affordability homeownership program for low- and moderate-income buyers and support small developments with long-term affordability restrictions. Testimony from community land trust leaders, legislators, and housing advocates emphasized that permanent affordability can preserve public investment, stabilize neighborhoods, and help families build wealth over generations. Senator Miranda and Representative Worrell tied the bill to closing the racial wealth gap and expanding access to homeownership for Black and Latino residents. The committee also heard testimony on S. 971, which would reform the Housing Development and Incentive Program to require more affordability in Gateway City projects. The committee additionally heard from Senator Kennedy and disability advocates on S. 1004, which would strengthen the Alternative Housing Voucher Program for people with disabilities by codifying project-based vouchers and aligning the program more closely with other voucher systems. Witnesses described long waitlists and the lack of accessible, affordable units as major barriers that can lead to homelessness or unnecessary institutionalization. No votes were taken during the hearing; the session was devoted to testimony and questions from committee members.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, thanks so much for your testimony. Who's next, Vice Chair Hall?
• I think the last person who testifies is Darren Raines, remotely.
• That was Charlie and Linda, who are testifying remotely.
• Linda, if you're with us remotely, it's your turn. I am. Thank you.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Summary: The Environment and Energy Committee heard testimony on three bills. HB 2426 would allow the Pollution Control Hearings Board, with unanimous agreement of the parties, to use alternative board compositions for appeals, including a single member or other qualified environmental adjudicators, so long as one member is a Washington-licensed attorney and the panel has environmental law expertise. The bill sponsor and supporters from business and conservation groups said it was a narrow, consensus-based change intended to improve efficiency and predictability. ELUHO’s director supported the concept but flagged technical issues in the bill language about attorney and Growth Management Hearings Board member qualifications. HB 2416 would provide no-cost allowances under the Climate Commitment Act to Spokane’s waste-to-energy facility, which is not currently covered until the second compliance period. Supporters, including Spokane officials, labor, and local partners, said the facility protects a sole-source aquifer, provides waste disposal and electricity for about 13,000 homes, and faces large compliance costs that could raise rates and threaten jobs. Opponents from environmental groups and Ecology argued the bill would give the facility preferential treatment, subsidize most of its emissions through 2050, and fail to ensure real emissions reductions; AWB raised concern about market impacts if new allowances are added. No vote was taken. HB 2373 would require electric utilities to offer monthly bill discount programs with tiered income levels, expanded outreach and enrollment, and updated reporting on low-income energy assistance. The sponsor said the bill is meant to make assistance more consistent and accessible statewide, while utilities and rural co-ops warned it could create unfunded mandates and significant rate increases for non-low-income customers, especially in smaller systems. Supporters from community action agencies, Commerce, and some utilities said monthly assistance is needed because energy burdens are rising and current programs are patchwork, though several urged pairing the bill with state funding or amendments. The committee heard extensive testimony but took no final action on any of the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Remote? Yes. Uh, please state your name, and you may begin.
• Yeah, please state your name and you may begin your testimony.
• </c><01:14:18.840><c> um</c> any thank you sir for your testimony um any thank you sir for your testimony
• </c> was able to watch the meeting remotely was able to watch the meeting remotely she<01:45:55.560><
• </c> practical Solution by allowing remote practical Solution by allowing remote participation<01:46:

Committee: Senate State and Local Government

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's hearing will be hybrid and work this way: testimony will be taken both in person and from remote
• You have two folks for remote, right? Remote.
• Thank you, Brian, for your testimony today. Thank you, Brian, for your testimony today.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• I believe he's remote. Remote.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Transportation

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation held its first hearing of the session on H. 53, Governor Healey’s Chapter 90 proposal to increase state funding for municipal roads, bridges, sidewalks, and culverts. Committee chairs outlined the hybrid hearing process and invited testimony from municipal officials, labor groups, regional planning organizations, contractors, and administration officials. Across the hearing, speakers consistently supported the bill, emphasizing long-deferred maintenance, inflation in construction costs, climate-related flooding, and the need for more predictable, multi-year funding so cities and towns can plan projects and take advantage of the construction season. The administration described H. 53 as part of a broader $8 billion transportation package, proposing to raise annual Chapter 90 funding from $200 million to $300 million for five years, with the additional $100 million distributed by road mileage to better support rural and small communities. They also highlighted $200 million for culverts and small bridges, plus other transportation investments, and said the five-year authorization would provide certainty for municipal capital planning. Municipal witnesses from places including Carlisle, Beverly, Granby, Hatfield, Newton, Nahant, Gardner, Beckett, and Yarmouth described local road and culvert backlogs, rising asphalt costs, and the difficulty of maintaining infrastructure on limited local budgets. Labor and industry witnesses from the AFL-CIO and MAPA said the bill would support good-paying jobs and provide stability for contractors and producers. The MBTA Advisory Board and regional planning representatives also backed the proposal, noting the connection between local roads and the broader transportation system. Committee members asked questions about the road-mile formula, culvert needs, asphalt costs, and the rationale for a five-year authorization. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee adjourned after testimony concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:16.080><c> this</c> that um we're not taking testimony this that um we're not taking testimony
• <00:01:29.159><c> at</c><00:01:29.360><c> that</c><00:01:29.600><c> time</c> testimony at that time testimony
• </c> Years with increased access to remote Years with increased access to remote work<01:35:59.239><c
• </c><01:46:41.040><c> or</c> those people that travel remotely or those people that travel remotely or
• remote workers still that those remot remote workers still have<01:47:00.960><c> to</c><01:47:01.119

Committee: Senate Taxes

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you very much for your testimony. I appreciate that.
• Lowand's Ayers will be on deck, and I believe they're all remote. So go ahead.
• So now we will go to our remote testimony from Brooke Fisher-Clark.
• And that concludes our testimony for 5961, and we will open testimony.
• So we heard some testimony yesterday, I believe it was, about impact fees.

Summary: The committee began with a work session on Washington’s child care oversight and subsidy system, focusing on Working Connections Child Care, licensing, audits, and fraud prevention. DCYF officials said the program serves over 63,000 eligible families, with about 6,600 licensed providers and roughly 2,200 license-exempt family, friend, and neighbor providers. They described annual unannounced licensing visits, complaint investigations, attendance tracking, eligibility verification, random and focused audits, and referrals to the Office of Fraud and Accountability or Office of Financial Recovery when needed. Senators asked about voucher amounts, visit frequency, and what happens when children are not present; officials said the average subsidy is about $2,200 per month, providers are paid directly, and repeated failed visits can lead to license closure. Child Care Aware and provider testimony emphasized the quality system, Early Achievers, and a virtual provider described the practical realities of home-based care and unannounced inspections. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5952, which would standardize the process for waiving high school physical education requirements. The bill’s sponsor said the goal was to make PE waiver decisions consistent across districts so students who move schools are not disadvantaged, especially in six-period schedules with limited room for electives. Student supporters said a uniform process would improve fairness and help students fit in AP, career, or other coursework. Opponents, including PE teachers and the Washington Association of School Principals, argued that PE is a core academic subject, that athletics is not interchangeable with PE, and that local flexibility should remain. The State Board of Education supported the bill, saying current district policies vary widely and a standardized process would improve equity and transparency. Next, the committee took testimony on Senate Bill 5961, which would transfer the Imagination Library of Washington from DCYF to OSPI. The sponsor called it a simple administrative move to align the book-gifting program with early literacy and K-12 education, noting the program serves about 120,000 children in all 39 counties. OSPI and program representatives supported the transfer, saying it better fits the birth-to-grade-three literacy continuum and strengthens accountability. Testifiers highlighted the program’s role in school readiness, early brain development, and access to physical books for young children. Finally, the committee opened Senate Bill 5969, which would allow a student’s IEP transition plan to satisfy high school and beyond plan requirements if the IEP team chooses. The sponsor, a special education teacher, said the bill would reduce duplication and better support students with disabilities as they transition to postsecondary life. The committee then began hearing testimony on the proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have submitted written testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Seeing none, thank you for your testimony.
• Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you.
• Seeing none, thank you for your testimony and your advocacy.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Public Service

Summary: The Joint Committee on Public Service heard testimony on a wide range of bills affecting public safety and public sector employees, with most of the discussion focused on expanding occupational presumptions and retirement protections for police, firefighters, correction officers, court officers, and other public employees. Testifiers from the Legislature, police and fire unions, the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association, PERAC, and the AFL-CIO generally supported bills covering cancer presumptions, contagious disease presumptions, Parkinson’s disease for firefighters, PTSD-related disability and death, and equity for post-certified police officers under the Heart Law. Several speakers emphasized that these conditions are linked to long-term occupational exposure, that current law leaves out agencies such as UMass police, Environmental Police, DMH police, and other state or campus police, and that the bills would correct gaps in existing benefits and presumptions. Representative Colleen Garry and Senator Joan Lovely spoke in support of expanding the Heart Law and cancer presumption protections, while Representative and Senator sponsors for the firefighter and PTSD bills described the health risks faced by first responders and urged favorable reports. PFFM and MassCOP representatives argued that firefighters and police officers face toxic exposures, infectious disease risks, and chronic stress, and cited studies and other states’ laws in support of the measures. PERAC testified that the PTSD accidental disability bill would clarify confusing case law and update filing requirements so traumatic incidents can be used in applications even when PTSD develops later, while still requiring medical review and retirement board approval. Additional testimony came from correction officers and trial court officers seeking comparable disability and pension protections, including a bill to extend a 100% disability pension to correction officers injured in violent attacks and a bill to treat court officers more like police and firefighters when injured in the line of duty. The committee asked a few clarifying questions, including about whether the PTSD bill would address post-retirement claims and about the impact of excluding “forgotten” police agencies. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the committee ultimately adjourned after hearing all scheduled testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, we have two testifiers, one in person, one remote.
• Okay, we have Brant Mayo remote.
• That concludes testimony on Senate Bill 6132.
• We have three testifiers, one in person and two remote.
• Okay, with that, I think we’re done with testimony.

Summary: The committee held public hearings on several bills related to transportation, utilities, housing permitting, and port financing. Substitute Senate Bill 6309 would give regional transit authorities, such as Sound Transit, more flexibility to apply for permits before acquiring property, exceed certain local height/setback limits when needed for rail systems, and use development agreements to vary local standards; the sponsor and Sound Transit testified that the bill would speed delivery of light rail and bus rapid transit, and an amendment was described to allow permits on property not yet owned if the transit authority remains responsible for obtaining property rights. Substitute Senate Bill 6076 would streamline procurement rules for public utility districts on clean energy, storage, transmission, and distribution projects by raising self-performance and contract thresholds, allowing limited noncompetitive procurement in certain reliability or specialized-technology situations, and extending some provisions until 2045; supporters from PUDs, labor, and industry said the changes are needed because of rising costs, long lead times, and grid reliability demands, while committee members asked about the size of the threshold increases and the scope of the bidding waivers. Substitute Senate Bill 5729 would prohibit local governments from charging applicants for third-party plan review when a licensed local staff professional of the same discipline has already reviewed the materials, while still allowing third-party review at the applicant’s cost in certain cases; the sponsor said the bill was narrowed from a broader version and was intended to prevent duplicative fees, and builders supported it as a permitting streamlining measure. Senate Bill 6132 would create a narrow debt-limit exception for the Port of Moses Lake to support a rail project and preserve federal funding eligibility; the port and economic development supporters said the project is ready to bid and needs additional borrowing capacity because of inflation, and the sponsor clarified that the bill is intended to apply only to that port. Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5374 would require tribal governments to be included in transportation planning coordination under the Growth Management Act and create a tribal traffic safety coordinator grant program; the sponsor emphasized severe pedestrian fatality disparities for Native people and said the bill is about consultation and safety, while county representatives supported the policy goal but asked for clearer cross-references to existing GMA consultation and dispute-resolution processes. The committee also took up Substitute Senate Bill 6070/6076-related testimony and, at the end of the hearing, announced that bills would be executed the next day and amendment requests should be submitted as soon as possible.

Transcript Highlights:

• This one will be the most remote facility, or one of maybe two facilities, to be the most remote facility
• We are very remote, the most remote in the state. times for churches and schools and 13 times for residents
• We are very remote, the most remote in the state. We are very remote, the most remote in the state.
• We will now move into testimony.
• Any additional testimony for the bill? Any additional testimony against? Thank you for being here.

Committee: House Special Committee on Intergovernmental Affairs

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2901, which would reauthorize the joint committee on child abuse and neglect by removing its expiration date. The sponsor described it as a cleanup bill because the committee’s prior sunset had passed, preventing it from formally reporting to the General Assembly. Members discussed whether the bill should include a new sunset date, with the sponsor saying he left that decision to the committee or floor amendment. Testimony and comments emphasized the scale of Missouri’s foster care and abuse-reporting system and the need for the committee’s work to continue; no opposition was offered, and the hearing closed without a vote. House Bill 2288 drew extensive testimony on landfill siting and county authority. The sponsor said the bill would give counties clearer statutory authority to adopt landfill setback rules, using Pettis County’s ordinance as a model, and argued rural counties should have more control over landfill placement. Supporters, including Pettis County officials, said local residents were strongly opposed to a proposed landfill and needed uniform standards and stronger local control. Opponents, including the project developer and a lobbyist, argued the bill’s setbacks were so large they would effectively block new landfills statewide, would be among the strictest in the country, and would hurt waste-disposal capacity, environmental management, and economic development. The hearing ended without a vote. The committee then moved into executive session and voted do pass on House Bills 1752, 2559, 2934, and 2928, and adopted an amendment and substitute before voting do pass House Committee Substitute for House Bill 2108. After returning to public hearing, the committee took up House Bill 351, which would create an independent Motor Vehicle Commission to handle dealer and consumer complaints and related licensing issues currently under the Department of Revenue. The sponsor and supporters said a specialized commission would provide faster, more expert handling of title problems, dealer complaints, and industry changes such as electric vehicles and direct sales models. Opponents questioned the need for a new commission, raised concerns about industry self-regulation, immunity, staffing, and added bureaucracy, and argued the Department of Revenue should instead be improved. Testimony continued with both support and opposition, including manufacturers’ concerns about not having a seat on the commission and arguments that the proposal could affect franchise and market-access issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe she's with us remotely.
• Maybe Michael is with us remotely. Yes, I am here remotely, Mr. Chair.
• It could be that Zeta is testifying remotely as well.
• Ken's testimony begins the testimony on the bottle bill, which has the most folks showing up today, so
• I just missed my brilliant testimony. I don't think so. I just missed my brilliant testimony.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Telecommunications, Utilities and Energy

Summary: The hearing focused mainly on two subjects: expansion of the Massachusetts bottle bill and bills to remove woody biomass from state clean-energy and greenhouse-gas programs. On the bottle bill, supporters from municipal, environmental, public health, and local government groups argued that the 5-cent deposit is outdated, redemption rates have fallen, and expanding coverage to more beverage containers—especially water, sports drinks, and small alcohol bottles—would reduce litter, cut plastic waste and microplastics, and save cities and towns money. Several speakers also backed raising handling fees for retailers and redemption centers, and some supported restoring a Clean Environment Fund so unclaimed deposits would support recycling-related purposes. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Beverage Association and the National Waste and Recycling Association, argued that curbside recycling and transfer-station systems are more convenient, that the targeted containers are valuable to local recycling programs, and that the proposal would shift costs onto consumers and municipalities. Committee members questioned witnesses about redemption rates, handling fees, the 2014 ballot question, and whether the bill had changed from prior sessions. The biomass portion drew strong support from Springfield officials, state legislators, environmental advocates, and public health groups. They said woody biomass should not count as clean energy because burning wood produces particulate pollution and carbon emissions, and they warned that current law contains a loophole that could help finance the proposed Palmer Renewable Energy biomass plant in Springfield. Witnesses emphasized Springfield’s air-quality and asthma burdens, the public health impacts of PM2.5, and the need to close the loophole before a January 1, 2026 deadline. One forest-industry witness supported a separate bill promoting modern wood heat with pollution controls, arguing it is cleaner than older wood systems and has minimal ratepayer cost, while noting that those credits would be affected if the governor’s broader energy affordability bill repeals the alternative energy portfolio standard. No votes were taken during the hearing. The chairs managed testimony by alternating between the bottle bill and biomass topics, asking speakers to keep remarks brief and to note when they agreed with prior testimony. Several legislators also testified in support of the bills, and committee members asked follow-up questions on deposit levels, retailer handling fees, recycling economics, and the public-health rationale for the biomass restrictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• There will be no testimony today.
• So after today, there’ll be future hearings with testimony. We just won’t have any testimony today.
• You’ve seen the remote email addresses on the postings.
• Written testimony is as important as any other testimony.
• written testimony is as important as any other testify by sending in written testimony written testimony

Summary: The House and Senate chairs opened the first organizational meeting of the special commission created by Chapter 238 of the Acts of 2024 to study the future of payments and sales transactions by credit card and the impacts on small businesses. They explained that the commission’s charge includes reviewing payment trends, cashless transactions, credit card fees, mobile payments, buy now/pay later financing, the costs to small businesses of accepting different forms of payment, and the impact of Section 28A of Chapter 140D. No testimony was taken at this first meeting; it was intended to introduce commission members, outline the process, and begin planning future hearings and a final report with recommendations or options for the Legislature. Members discussed possible hearing topics, including business and consumer impacts of credit card fees, surcharges, and gratuities; the legal and regulatory landscape; and policy considerations such as transparency, reporting requirements, and possible limits on fees. Several members supported the commission’s scope and noted the issue’s timeliness, citing the growth of cashless transactions and the burden of swipe fees on retailers and restaurants. One member suggested the commission also consider cryptocurrency in transactions, and another raised the possibility of holding hearings outside the State House to improve access for small businesses around the state. The chairs said the first public hearing is tentatively set for April 8 in Gardner Auditorium, with additional hearings to be scheduled depending on interest and sign-ups. They said testimony may be offered in person, online, or in writing, and that written testimony will be part of the record. The commission also encouraged members and interested parties to suggest experts, topics, and report formats as the study develops. The meeting ended with a motion to close and an affirmative vote to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have remote panelists from Switch Maritime.
• Thank you for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you very much for your testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony.

Bills: SB6352

Committee: Senate Transportation

Keywords: transportation, infrastructure, resources, funding, state law

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we will move to remote testimony.
• Madam Chair, we'll move to remote testimony at this time. Thank you. Great.
• That completes our testimony on House Bill 2104.
• That completes our testimony for House Bill 2348.
• That completes our testimony for House Bill 2454.

Summary: The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee held public hearings on three bills. HB 2104 would make permanent the Aviation Assurance Funding Program, which lets DNR provide aerial wildfire response resources to local fire departments during initial attack. The prime sponsor, Rep. Tom Dent, said the program helps small rural districts avoid costly state mobilization and keeps fires small; DNR and local fire officials testified in strong support, citing rapid response times, major property protection, and even a rescue of a trapped civilian. No opposition testimony was heard, and the sign-in record showed 215 pro and one con. HB 2348, a DNR request bill, would streamline timber and land sale procedures by allowing more online notice, changing where sales may be held, permitting re-offering of no-bid sales, and clarifying appraisal and fair-market-value standards for certain land transfers. DNR said the bill would improve efficiency and reduce administrative burden, while the American Forest Resource Council and Washington Forest Protection Association supported it as a modernization measure that preserves fiduciary protections for trust lands. Committee members asked about the scope of the trust-land language and potential savings; the sign-in record showed 43 pro and one con. HB 2454 would raise the surface mine reclamation threshold from three acres to seven acres of disturbed area, reducing the number of small gravel and aggregate operations subject to DNR permitting. Rep. Andrew Engel argued the change would help small rural producers compete against larger corporations and lower burdens on local material suppliers. DNR opposed the bill, saying acreage alone does not determine environmental risk and that the permit process provides important review, technical assistance, and reclamation planning; the agency said it was open to discussing alternative approaches. A remote industry witness supported the bill, saying it would help small sources remain viable while county regulation would still apply. The sign-in record showed 143 pro and three con. After the hearings, the committee adjourned without taking votes on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, we have Brant Mayo remote.
• That concludes testimony on Senate Bill 6132.
• So if we could have Nicholas Garcia come to the table, and then we'll take the remote testimony of Patrick
• Okay, with that, I think we're done with testimony.
• Okay, with that, I think we're done with testimony.

Bills: SB6132

Committee: House Local Government

Keywords: indebtedness limits, inland port districts, federal funding, infrastructure improvements, economic development

Transcript Highlights:

• Thanks for hearing my testimony today, and I've submitted written testimony for the committee as well
• We will conclude testimony with Jeff Pack, who is remote.
• We will conclude testimony with Jeff Pack, who is remote.
• We don't see Rose Feliciano or Robert Singleton, so we'll move to remote testimony from Zeke Reister
• conclude testimony given the amount.

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

Transcript Highlights:

• heard by one chamber and then have all that same testimony heard by the second chamber.
• So after all that joint testimony and deliberation happens, the joint committee issues a joint report
• joint committees remotely, because not everyone can travel under such a quick period.
• He had indicated to me yesterday that that was his plan, that he was going to do that remotely.
• Will remote participation in the session be allowed? By approval, I think. By approval, I think.

Summary: The committee first discussed security and member contact procedures, with several members emphasizing the need for formal security training at the start of each session and clearer procedures for knowing where legislators are staying during session for welfare checks and emergency contact. Members also raised concerns about the disclosure of home addresses in other public records and forms, and Legislative Council was asked to prepare a background memo on possible training, best practices, and related legislative or rule changes. The committee then took up a bill draft to reduce the number of paper copies of state publications sent to the State Library from eight to two. Legislative Council explained the cost savings and the move toward digital distribution, but the State Librarian testified that the library still needs paper copies for circulation, archives, and depository libraries, and requested a minimum of three copies. After discussion, the committee amended the draft to require three copies instead of two and passed the motion. The committee also approved a related House and Senate Rules amendment reducing the number of bound journals distributed, and a separate rule change removing the requirement that legislators’ home addresses be printed in the rule book and allowing a lower print run based on request and need. The committee next reviewed data on bill pre-filing and legislative workload. After hearing testimony that agency bills tend to arrive in a late-year rush and that staff workload is especially heavy around organizational session and the holidays, the committee voted to move the agency pre-filing deadline to the Wednesday before Thanksgiving. It also amended the deadline for constitutional amendments and study resolutions, moving them earlier so they would occur before crossover, and adjusted the reporting deadline accordingly. Members discussed whether these changes should be handled in special session or organizational session, and staff explained that the agency deadline change could be made effective for the next regular session through a permanent rules change. Finally, the committee reviewed proposed special session rules. Staff explained that the special session would use joint appropriations and joint policy committees, with expedited bill processing, limited bill introduction routes, and remote participation allowed for members and public testimony with approval. The committee also resolved a House appropriations membership issue by keeping the House side at 23 members and giving the House majority leader authority to appoint a replacement for the vacant seat, while increasing the Senate dollar threshold to match the House. Members then discussed the upcoming rural health special session process, including how the interim rural health group would differ from the actual special session committees, the timing of committee work and the governor’s address, and whether remote participation would be permitted in the special session.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• Thank you so much for your testimony.
• So we did hear also testimony on those that witness a— ...also testimony on those that witness assaults
• For example, those that choose to move to a remote environment or remote work, that likely results in

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee hearing focused on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s handling of mental health care in prisons and allegations of sexual abuse, retaliation, and excessive force in the state’s women’s facilities. CDCR officials described their PREA-based prevention and response efforts, including training, oversight, body-worn cameras, retaliation follow-up, and partnerships with outside groups. The Office of the Inspector General explained its monitoring role, noting increased authority under SB 1069, but also limited staffing and the ability to monitor only a portion of cases. The Legislative Analyst’s Office added that prison population trends could allow the state to close a prison and save over $100 million, with some savings potentially redirected to prevention or response efforts. Advocates and formerly incarcerated witnesses from Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition and the California Coalition of Women Prisoners testified that meaningful systemic change has not occurred and that retaliation, blocked programming, and unsafe reporting conditions remain widespread. They described alleged barriers to community-based services, forced or coercive treatment concerns involving Suboxone, and the need for survivor-centered reentry support, trauma-informed care, and more independent oversight. Sandra DeAnda gave detailed testimony about alleged staff abuse, retaliation, denial of mental health care, and a large use-of-force incident at Central California Women’s Facility, while Amika Mota and April Grayson urged release or resentencing for survivors housed with their abusers and greater investment in outside programs. Members of the committee pressed CDCR and OIG on accountability, use-of-force standards, criminal referrals, disciplinary outcomes, and whether investigations are completed within statutory timelines. CDCR acknowledged cultural problems at both women’s prisons and said it was retraining staff and working on reforms, while OIG said it had monitored 161 investigations and found most grievance routing appropriate, though some cases had lapsed due to time limits. Later exchanges revealed that CDCR has over 13,500 active cases and 109 investigators, and that some cases have exceeded deadlines, prompting concerns from members about whether the current system can adequately investigate misconduct and impose consequences. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, she really wants to see testimony.
• Thank you for your testimony. All right.
• Any member testimony. All right.
• Uh good morning chairs testimony? Yes.
• </c><01:25:38.560><c> All</c> your testimony? Kathy Wheeland. Yep. All your testimony?

Bills: HF604 , HF1972 , HF578 , HF1951 , HF629 , HF864 , HF874 , HF1155 , HF884 , HF2365 , HF643 , HF234 , HF2655 , HF2637 , HF2535 , HF2530 , HF2344 , HF584 , HF524

Committee: House Capital Investment