Transcript Highlights:

• I can't just approve a program through the legislature.
• And if so, what do you think this Legislature can do to address it?
• So first focusing on 2024-25 we recommend that the Legislature have the judicial branch share...
• So to address that, we actually recommend the Legislature modify the language in two key ways.
• I would urge the Legislature to support the $40 an hour raise. Thank you for your comments.

Summary: The committee heard extensive testimony on Proposition 36 and its implementation, with judicial and budget officials describing it as a major shift from misdemeanor to felony processing for repeat drug possession and certain theft offenses. Witnesses explained that the law creates a treatment-mandated felony process that can lead to dismissal if a defendant completes treatment, but also requires evaluations, court monitoring, and potentially long, open-ended supervision. Judicial representatives said the new law is already generating large numbers of filings, creating workload, staffing, courtroom, and facility pressures, and that access to treatment beds, housing, and evaluation capacity is limiting participation. Several speakers emphasized that collaborative courts are effective but are not a perfect fit for Prop. 36 because those programs are typically probation-based and serve different risk/need populations. Court officials from San Bernardino and Orange counties said the impacts vary by county but are severe, with some counties seeing hundreds or more filings in a short period and others moving more slowly to build treatment infrastructure first. They argued that Prop. 36 is effectively an unfunded mandate unless the state provides more resources for judges, staff, facilities, treatment, housing, and supervision. The Legislative Analyst’s Office noted that Prop. 36 will reduce the Proposition 47 savings that fund mental health and substance use treatment grants, but said the near-term reduction is relatively modest and that the full effect will take time to appear because of the way those savings are calculated. Members of the committee repeatedly raised concerns that the state is underfunding the courts and counties needed to carry out the new law. The committee also reviewed the Governor’s proposed trial court operations budget, including a partial restoration of a prior $97 million cut and additional ongoing funding. Judicial branch officials said the restoration helped avoid furloughs, hiring freezes, and service reductions, and supported cybersecurity, technology, staffing, and records management. The LAO recommended that the Legislature seek more detail on how midyear restorations are handled and consider clarifying language for transferring unspent trial court trust fund monies to the General Fund. Finance said the flexibility in the ongoing funding was intentional and would be taken back for consideration. In a separate item, the committee heard testimony on a $6.3 million increase for Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal appointed counsel programs. Judicial officials and appellate project representatives said the system is facing a crisis because indigent appeals have risen sharply while the number of panel attorneys has fallen, leaving many cases waiting months for counsel. They argued the proposed increase would help but is still below what is needed to recruit and retain attorneys and prevent delays that affect criminal, juvenile, and child welfare cases. The committee also discussed the Tracy courthouse project in San Joaquin County, where local officials said reopening a courthouse closed since 2011 is necessary to serve a growing population and relieve overcrowding elsewhere. The LAO and Finance both noted the project is next in line under the facilities plan, though LAO suggested the Legislature could consider whether other facility priorities should come first.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's for the funds that the Legislature has provided to us, the SAFER program.
• Does it fall back on us as a Legislature to ensure that the funding is there?
• And I know the Legislature has a lot of competing issues that you're dealing with.
• And on another subject related, the Legislature adopted AB 205 a few years ago.
• And that also means... ...between you and many in the legislature.

Committee: Senate Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• You, as the Legislature, are probably going to be under pressure to do something about that.
• It very much depends on what the Legislature would like to protect.
• The Legislature has a good amount of flexibility to define what infrastructure spending is.
• There is a bill that was introduced on the other side of the Legislature and the Assembly.
• It can be used anywhere the Legislature wants to put those dollars.

Committee: Senate Budget and Fiscal Review

Summary: The Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee held an informational hearing on California’s Budget Stabilization Account, or Rainy Day Fund, with presentations from the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the Department of Finance, Practical Idealism Economics, and the California Budget and Policy Center. The LAO explained that California’s revenue volatility is driven largely by the personal income tax and high-income capital gains, and described how Proposition 2 deposits work, the 10% cap on the BSA, and the LAO’s evaluation that the current policy would cover only about 30% of funding shortfalls over 50 years in an unfavorable benchmark scenario. The LAO recommended raising the cap to 50% over time and either adopting broader deposit rules or depositing all excess capital gains. Finance said the administration had proposed raising the cap to 20% and excluding reserve deposits and withdrawals from the state appropriations limit. The Budget Center supported reserve reform but stressed balancing savings with current service needs and noted other tools such as revenue changes, borrowing from special funds, and the new Projected Surplus Temporary Holding Account. Committee members debated the purpose and adequacy of reserves, the role of the state appropriations limit, and whether reserves should be paired with broader fiscal reforms. Several senators argued that reserves are needed to preserve core services during downturns and that the current system is too complicated and too small, while others emphasized the need to protect spending on health care, child care, and other services for working Californians. There was also discussion of infrastructure spending as a possible countercyclical tool and whether deposits for infrastructure should be treated differently under reserve and SAL rules. The LAO said the Legislature has flexibility in defining infrastructure spending and suggested an infrastructure fund could function as a separate reserve-like mechanism. A significant portion of the hearing turned to broader tax and budget policy, including repeated references to Proposition 13, the state’s revenue structure, business departures, unemployment insurance financing, and the impact of inequality on California’s fiscal resilience. Some members argued Prop. 13 was driven by affordability concerns for homeowners, while others said it created loopholes that benefit corporations and constrain local revenue. The hearing did not take any vote or formal action; it remained informational, with the chair indicating the committee would continue questions and public comment after the panel discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• So she said this is a double standard between the legislature and local government.
• The legislature, as sometimes happens, kind of came to an impasse on what to do.
• And I'm talking their national legislatures, for how many their national legislatures represent in terms
• But I have the great privilege today of having a shadow in the legislature.
• It passed out of the legislature and the governor vetoed it.

Bills: HB2070 , HB2129 , HB2227 , HB2439 , HB2667 , HB2745 , HB2773 , HB2825 , HB2873 , HB2876 , HCR2005 , HCR2044 , SB1002 , SB1036 , SB1054 , SB1271 , SB1432 , SB1435 , SB1437 , SB1439 , SCR1022 , SCR1031 , SCR1033

Committees: Senate Government , Senate Senate Government Committee of Reference

Keywords: flood relief, Gila County, emergency funding, public safety, environmental cleanup, municipal libraries, annual reporting, state legislation, transparency, government accountability, chiropractic, chiropractor, chiropractic board, state board of chiropractic examiners, license discipline, unprofessional conduct, patient records, record retention, HIPAA, conflict of interest

Transcript Highlights:

• That cost issue was kind of tabled, but the Legislature was made aware of that.
• So do you think that might incentivize people to come to the Legislature?
• Get some money from the Legislature?
• Do you think that might incentivize people to come to the Legislature, not come to an agreement?
• These are the kind of bills, honestly, I love about working in the legislature.

Summary: The committee began with a work session on the Washington State Transportation Commission’s route jurisdiction transfer study. Commissioners and staff said the current state highway system is generally well connected and that wholesale realignment is not needed, but they recommended clarifying statutory criteria, improving the transfer process, increasing interagency coordination, and making data analysis more transparent. Members asked about why transfers occur, who pays for maintenance after a transfer, how often transfers happen, and how the Legislature’s role should be understood. Staff said there have been only 16 RJT transfers since 1991, with a net transfer of about 10 miles of state highway to cities, while DOT abandonments happen more often but are not tracked as consistently. The committee then held a public hearing on House Bill 2172, which would fold longer abandonments and bridge-related abandonments into the RJT process, require pre-request conferences, expand legislative review of costs and risks, and update highway criteria. Tacoma officials, the Transportation Commission, counties, cities, and the Transportation Improvement Board testified in support, citing transparency, local input, and the need to address large bridge and corridor transfers; the bill sponsor said a substitute would allow agreed transfers to proceed without final legislative approval, but send disputed cases to the Legislature. The bill was also described as having an indeterminate fiscal impact, with WSDOT estimating possible added maintenance costs if transfers are delayed. The committee next heard House Bill 1367, which would allow motorcycles to use the right shoulder of limited-access highways under specific congestion conditions. The bill and a proposed substitute would limit shoulder use to wide shoulders, require hazard lights, cap speed at 10 mph over adjacent traffic, and bar passing other vehicles on the shoulder; the fiscal note projected costs for driver education and possible maintenance and signage impacts. The sponsor argued the bill would reduce rider fatigue, heat stress, and rear-end risk in stop-and-go traffic, while opponents from law enforcement and WSDOT said shoulders are intended for emergencies, debris and visibility create safety risks, and the proposal could increase maintenance and enforcement burdens. Several motorcyclists and advocates supported the bill as a safer alternative to lane splitting, while a student and some agencies said it would give riders a more predictable option; the committee then closed the hearing. The committee also heard House Bill 2174, which would create “crash prevention zones” in areas with repeated serious collisions or fatalities. The bill would allow cities, counties, towns, or WSDOT to designate zones after a public hearing, require engineering and traffic studies, increase enforcement, and impose a $73 penalty for certain infractions within signed zones, with revenue dedicated to safety work in the zone. The sponsor pointed to dangerous stretches of Highway 395 and Highway 12 in eastern Washington and said the bill is intended as a temporary safety tool until long-term fixes are completed. Counties and cities supported the concept and asked for liability protections and language from a Senate companion bill; the committee then moved to House Bill 2718, a transportation permitting and project-delivery bill. Staff said HB 2718 would impose timelines and deemed-approval rules for certain state and federal permits, require early outreach to affected governments and tribes, create a public contractor-rating website, and direct WSDOT to report on permit-streamlining options by December 1, 2027. The sponsor said the bill is meant to reduce delays and costs in transportation projects by improving accountability, coordination, and permitting efficiency.

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature may not be able to respond to them.
• About the court, when the legislature created the Texas business.
• So textualism says we look to the text of the law as passed by you, the legislature.
• If it's a conservative legislature that passed that law or the legislature reflects conservative public
• I would leave it up to the legislature whether you want to try to.

Committee: Senate Nominations

Keywords: Texas Water Fund, water management, infrastructure funding, local governments, workforce development, community colleges, educational programs, sustainability

Summary: The meeting focused on several crucial issues, including the Texas Water Fund and its implications for development in the state. Various members highlighted the critical need for effective management of water resources, discussing the role of the Water Development Board and their strategies for outreach to local governments. The committee engaged in a thorough examination of funding projects and the sustainable financing necessary for communities facing challenges in meeting their infrastructure needs. Additionally, there was notable discussion regarding promoting workforce development and the alignment of educational programs with the demands of the job market as indicated by recent trends in community colleges.

Transcript Highlights:

• I thought I might give, this is not a new issue to the legislature.
• Would the legislature have passed this? Was this part of some big deal or something?
• I've never heard it in the legislature before. I'm not going to say no one has ever filed it.
• Joint resolutions, that is proposed constitutional amendments that are enacted by the legislature.
• So this covers every sort of legislative act that the legislature might do.

Committee: House Legislative Review

Summary: The Committee on Legislative Review met with five members present and took up two public hearings: House Bill 369 and House Bill 3465. On HB 369, Representative Simmons said the bill would let school employees join or leave teachers’ unions at any time and would prohibit school districts from automatically deducting union dues from paychecks, citing the Janus decision and arguing members should pay directly rather than through payroll deduction. Committee members questioned why the bill was needed, whether unions and school districts had been consulted, whether current law already allows opt-in/opt-out at any time, and whether the bill would affect other payroll deductions. Opposition testimony from Missouri NEA, Missouri State Teachers Association, and the Missouri AFL-CIO said the bill was unnecessary, targeted unions, could create administrative burdens, and might raise constitutional concerns; they emphasized that payroll deduction is already voluntary and that members can cancel membership at any time. No vote was taken on HB 369 during the hearing. The committee then heard HB 3465, a severability bill sponsored by Representative Keithley. He explained that it would create a broader severability standard so that if part of a legislative act is found unconstitutional, the rest could remain in effect unless there is clear and convincing evidence the legislature would not have passed the act without the invalid provision. He said the bill is intended to give courts clearer guidance and preserve the remainder of legislation when possible. Questions from members focused on how this differs from existing severability law and whether it would improperly direct the courts; Keithley responded that it clarifies legislative intent and applies to procedural as well as substantive constitutional issues. Supporters, including Campaign Life Missouri, said the bill would apply to bills, joint resolutions, and concurrent resolutions and would give courts a clearer standard. There was no opposition testimony on HB 3465, and the hearing concluded with no further business and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, current law does not allow a person called by legislature or a legislative committee to refuse
• Continuing to allow the legislature the ability to provide a compelled witness with blanket immunity
• The legislature has given you three options.
• to decide. can ask is that the legislature be clear.
• The legislature has full authority to provide maximum clarity, and that's what I hope you'll do.

Bills: SB16 , SB76 , SB310 , SB311 , SB396 , SB505 , SB827 , SB964 , SB1209 , SB1210 , SB1386 , SB1470 , SB2035 , SJR37 , SB 16

Committee: Senate State Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions is charged with providing a report to the legislature
• The measure is then filed with the legislature.
• There are a lot of things that I think this legislature, again, has been bold on.
• For the record, I'm Dave Kaufman, senior executive and legislature director at the MMA.
• Is there anything that the legislature should be doing to incentivize that in our municipalities?

Bills: H5009

Committee: Joint Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions

Keywords: collective bargaining, worker rights, labor relations, public counsel services, state employees

Transcript Highlights:

• I’m happy to provide input to the extent the Legislature needs some additional information.”
• So now the Legislature has funded the additional rehab positions for that facility.
• That the Legislature has funded, you know, free messaging for the incarcerated.
• So we recommend the Legislature direct the department to report in budget hearings on what steps it's
• The legislature could also seek updates on Could the legislature could also seek updates on the progress

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview from the Board of State and Community Corrections on its budget change proposal for 11 additional permanent positions, which BSCC said are needed to manage a rapidly expanded grant workload, increase technical assistance, and strengthen oversight and audits. BSCC also updated members on its new In Custody Death Review Division, created under SB 519, reporting that it has begun collecting and reviewing local jail death investigations, has hired about one-third of its staff, and has received access to medical records and related documents. Members raised concerns about family notification practices, local jail deaths, and whether BSCC’s increased administrative use would reduce grant dollars; BSCC said the change is intended to be permanent but should not substantially affect local assistance. The LAO supported the position authority request but flagged a methodological issue in the administration’s Proposition 47 savings estimate, and Finance said it would update the estimate by May Revision. The committee then reviewed CDCR’s overall budget, population, and facility issues. The Secretary said the incarcerated population is holding around 90,000, parole around 33,000, and described major cost pressures from retirements, workers’ compensation, medical transport, violence, and aging infrastructure lacking air conditioning and ADA features. He defended prison closures as creating overcrowding and reducing programming capacity, while also highlighting successes such as declining recidivism, expanded college and reentry programming, and the completion of the San Quentin Rehabilitation Center. Members pressed CDCR on fiscal discipline, the effect of closures on savings, community impacts from prison shutdowns, vacancy and staffing issues, and climate-related facility needs. CDCR said it clusters medically vulnerable and ADA-needing populations at more suitable facilities, uses heat plans and temperature monitoring, and is developing a 20-year infrastructure plan. A separate item addressed CDCR’s request for $91 million ongoing for lump-sum leave payouts for correctional officers and nurses. CDCR said these costs have historically been covered by vacancy savings, but declining vacancies and facility closures have reduced that source. The LAO said the funding is reasonable in the near term but recommended limited-term approval with reporting, and urged the Legislature to scrutinize unallocated savings assumptions and the ongoing Boston Consulting Group efficiency contract. Finance argued the lump-sum request should be ongoing because the costs are recurring and vacancy savings are less reliable. Members questioned whether CDCR is doing enough to reduce leave liability and whether the department will actually achieve the budgeted savings from the consultant work. Finally, CDCR presented updated population projections through June 2030, estimating a 6.5 percent decline in the institution population and a 10.4 percent decline in parole, while revising its Proposition 36 methodology based on actual admissions data. CDCR said Prop. 36 admissions are increasing but at a lower level than previously projected, and that the law’s long-term effects remain uncertain. On the California Rehabilitation Center closure, CDCR projected about $99.6 million in net General Fund savings next year and roughly $150 million ongoing, with 522 positions eliminated. The LAO said the state could close another prison within a few years and identified the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad as a strong candidate, recommending against approving new capital projects there unless another closure is identified. Finance said the administration has not proposed any additional closure at this time.

Transcript Highlights:

• So now, and the Legislature has funded the additional rehab positions for that facility.
• The Legislature has funded, you know, free messaging for the incarcerated.
• So we recommend the Legislature direct the department to report in budget hearings on what steps it's
• The Legislature could also seek updates on the progress of the work, given that when we spoke to the
• The legislature could also seek updates on Could the legislature could also seek updates on the progress

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor, and Transportation heard an overview from the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) on its budget change proposal and grant administration. BSCC requested authority for 11 additional permanent positions to handle a workload that has nearly tripled over five to seven years, with more than 600 grant agreements and about $1.5 billion in grant funds in the field. The board also reported on its new In-Custody Death Review Division, which has collected data since July 2024 and received 136 jail death reports; staff said the division is still building out reviews and has identified overdose, natural causes, and suicide by hanging as the leading manners of death. Members raised concerns about family notification practices, oversight of local grants, and the impact of taking more administrative funds from local assistance, while the LAO and Department of Finance did not oppose the position request but urged correction of the administration’s Proposition 47 savings methodology before May Revision. The committee then reviewed CDCR’s overall budget and operations. Secretary Jeffrey Macomber described a relatively steady prison and parole population, ongoing structural budget pressures from retirement payouts, workers’ compensation, medical transport, violence, and aging facilities lacking air conditioning and ADA features. He emphasized rehabilitation, recidivism reduction, college programming, and the department’s 20-year infrastructure planning effort, while also defending the closure of the California Rehabilitation Center and warning that additional closures can increase overcrowding, double-celling, and waitlists for programming. Senators pressed CDCR on fiscal discipline, vacancy savings, staffing shortages in medical and mental health classifications, the use of tablets for incarcerated people, and community impacts from prison closures, including the Norco site. A separate item focused on CDCR’s request for $91 million ongoing for lump-sum leave payouts to separating correctional officers and nurses. CDCR said these costs had historically been covered by vacancy savings, but lower vacancy levels and facility closures have reduced that funding source. The LAO supported the funding only on a limited-term basis with reporting, arguing the need may change as the system reaches a new normal, and also urged the Legislature to scrutinize the broader structural shortfall and the Boston Consulting Group efficiency contract. Finance supported ongoing funding, saying the costs are recurring and vacancy savings are less reliable. The committee also discussed CDCR’s fall 2025 population projections, which forecast a 6.5% decline in the institution population and a 10.4% decline in parole over five years, while updating Proposition 36 assumptions based on actual admissions data. CDCR and Finance said the California Rehabilitation Center closure would generate savings and that no additional prison closure had been formally proposed, though the LAO argued the state could close another prison and recommended not funding certain Soledad projects unless another closure is identified.

Transcript Highlights:

• This basically sets up a process, and what it does is allows the legislature, when they believe a rule
• And then as a legislature, we have our lane, which is statutory provisions.
• I would be more concerned if this was some kind of action by the Legislature to invalidate a rule.
• And then as a legislature, we have our lane, which is statutory provisions.
• It would require most of the legislature to want to make that comment. and legislature to want to make

Committee: Senate Judiciary and Rules

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there a directive from the legislature, or is it within the authority's purview?
• But to... ...authority from the Legislature in order to look at some kind of a statewide framework.
• The Legislature abdicated a lot of their responsibility to CARB.
• And actually, I would welcome recommendations from all of you and from any member of the Legislature
• And I certainly appreciate the recognition that the Legislature creates the law, that the Legislature

Committee: Senate Rules

Summary: The committee first established quorum and then approved several governor’s appointments not required to appear, including Indira Cameron Banks to the Civil Rights Council, Sonar Loma Lee to the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, and two University of California College of the Law, San Francisco Board of Directors appointees, along with reference of bills to two committees and floor acknowledgments. All of those items passed by voice or roll-call votes, mostly unanimously, with the Civil Rights Council appointment approved 3-2. The main portion of the meeting focused on the Air Resources Board appointments of Linda Hopkins and Patricia Lock Dawson. Both nominees emphasized climate action, public engagement, and balancing environmental protection with economic realities. Members questioned them extensively about cap-and-trade/cap-and-invest, leakage and job losses, agricultural impacts, warehouse and truck traffic burdens, emergency vehicle and wildfire evacuation needs, low-carbon fuel standards, gas appliance rules, hydrogen, nuclear energy, and the need for socioeconomic analysis and better communication with affected communities. Public commenters from labor, environmental, local government, and industry groups spoke in support of both nominees. The committee approved Hopkins 4-0 with one member not voting, and Lock Dawson 5-0, sending both nominations to the full Senate. The committee then heard Andrew Rakestraw’s appointment as chair of the Board of Environmental Safety/DTSC oversight board. He described his background in climate and regulatory negotiations and said he would focus on transparency, accountability, fiscal stability, and listening to both regulated entities and disproportionately burdened communities. Senators asked about DTSC reform, the Moss Landing battery fire, community engagement in places like Hinkley/Herupah Valley, fee-setting and the generation-and-handling fee, the Environmental Justice Advisory Council, the Exide cleanup, and the hazardous waste management plan. After supportive public testimony, the committee approved his appointment 3-0, with one member not voting, and sent it to the full Senate for confirmation before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• These recommendations are built on other improvements the legislature has made in recent years.
• This legislature has prioritized sending a lot of extra money there, and also by policy work that has
• The legislature has prioritized sending additional funding...
• So last year, the legislature sent an additional $200 million to the Water Trust Board.
• This is procedurally part of what the legislature can and does do regularly.

Committee: House House Taxation & Revenue

Transcript Highlights:

• reserves to the people the power of initiative, placing citizens on equal footing with us in the legislature
• The Constitution, as we have heard discussed before, contemplates the legislature not taking action in
• The idea that the legislature does have the opportunity or the legal option to ignore the initiative,
• The fact that there's a backstop provided in the Constitution if the legislature chooses not to follow
• They might be a established by the legislature and the State Board of Education or SBE.

Summary: The committee first took up a motion from Ranking Member Root to promptly schedule public hearings on two citizens’ initiatives. Supporters argued the Constitution and public accountability required hearings so voters could hear pro and con arguments; opponents said the legislature was not obligated to act that way and the initiatives would still be heard at the ballot. On a voice vote, the motion failed. The committee then heard extensive testimony on House Bill 1295, which would require evidence-aligned, comprehensive literacy instruction for K-4 students, update teacher endorsement standards and preparation programs, and require literacy-related continuing education for some teachers. The bill also repeals several older literacy-related provisions. The sponsor and supporters said Washington’s reading results are too low and that structured literacy reflects the science of reading; districts such as Puyallup described strong gains after adopting evidence-aligned instruction. Opponents and alternative-program advocates argued the bill could narrow instructional approaches and exclude programs they say have worked well. PESB testified neutrally that much of the endorsement work is already underway but asked for clarification on recertification language. The hearing on HB 1295 was suspended and later resumed with additional pro testimony from students, parents, and literacy advocates. House Bill 2262 was then heard and completed. It would require high school civics instruction to include teaching students to produce a legible, repeatable official signature and explain how signatures are used in elections and ballot processes, while also requiring related outreach and reporting on signature mismatch ballot rejections. The sponsor and county auditor testimony emphasized that younger voters often have signatures that change over time and that better instruction could reduce ballot rejections; questions focused on whether the bill should account for printed signatures and diverse writing systems. The Secretary of State’s office and county auditors were reported as supportive, and the hearing closed after a large number of pro sign-ins. The committee also heard House Bill 2636, which would create a public education performance, operations, and funding review commission to evaluate whether education mandates and funding are effective, relevant, and adequately supported. Supporters said the bill would help identify unfunded mandates and reduce administrative burdens on districts; rural district testimony urged a narrower scope and earlier start date. Finally, House Bill 2007 was heard, proposing competency-based assessments as additional graduation pathway options in place of some existing course/exam requirements. Student testimony supported more flexible, equitable pathways, while the State Board of Education said it supports competency-based education but preferred to wait for its broader Future Ready graduation-requirements work and noted the bill would require additional rulemaking. The hearing on HB 2007 closed after testimony from students and a neutral statement from SBE.

Transcript Highlights:

• Finally, WSDA must also submit a preliminary report to the Legislature and governor by December of 2027
• resolution to the issue, but we think it’s important that since the legislature generously invested
• has said that's too much of a burden on the... ...fee, and the legislature has said that's too much
• I don't know what the legislature will do this session.
• To the legislature, to give y'all a chance to look at it. So we didn't go to 100%.

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:

• In 2024, the legislature made the program portable, meaning that if workers pay into the program for
• Hence, the legislature fixed this by shifting to a grandfathered opt-out approach, the grandfathered
• Like, what is it the legislature really needs to look at?
• But the legislature has been looking at this, and we realize there's more work to be done.
• So, as those of us in the legislature know, that's super important for us.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Executive Committee on Planning for Aging and Disability Issues

Summary: The committee met for what was described as its final meeting, with members and staff reflecting on the work of the Joint Legislative Executive Committee on Aging and Long-Term Care and noting that future work would likely shift to standing health and wellness committees. The meeting began with introductions and then moved into updates on major initiatives that originated from the committee, including Washington Cares, the Dementia Action Collaborative, and Medicaid long-term care programs. Presenters emphasized that these efforts were developed through long-term legislative-executive collaboration and were intended to help Washington prepare for the state’s aging population. On Washington Cares, DSHS described the program’s development from a 2014 research effort to its 2019 enactment, premium collection beginning in 2023, portability improvements in 2024, and 2025 changes including a grandfathered opt-out fix and a framework for supplemental private long-term care insurance. The agency said benefits are expected to go fully live next summer, with a pilot of up to 400 applicants planned for next January. On dementia policy, the Dementia Action Collaborative reported on the state dementia plan, Project ECHO training for providers, and pilot dementia-capable community programs at area agencies on aging, citing preliminary results that about 85% of family caregivers said services helped people remain at home. DSHS also reviewed Medicaid Transformation Project initiatives, including Medicaid Alternative Care, Tailored Supports for Older Adults, presumptive eligibility, and health-related social needs benefits such as rental assistance, nutrition support, and home modifications. The committee then heard an emerging issues panel from ombuds and disability advocates. Patricia Hunter of the long-term care ombuds program raised concerns about staffing shortages, resident rights, surveillance technology, private equity ownership of facilities, and illegal discharges or evictions. Betty Sweeterman of the Developmental Disabilities Ombuds discussed people stuck in hospitals without medical need, gaps in behavioral health services for people with developmental disabilities, and the need for better workforce training. Todd Carlyle of Disability Rights Washington urged expansion and bundling of community supports such as PACT, GOSH, and peer bridgers to reduce repeated institutionalization and support discharge from inpatient psychiatric settings. Provider and labor panels followed, with nursing home, assisted living, supported living, and union representatives all emphasizing workforce shortages, low wages, Medicaid rate inadequacy, case management bottlenecks, behavioral health complexity, and the need for more flexible care models and stronger accountability for rate increases. No formal votes were taken; the meeting ended with public comment on manufactured housing and closing remarks thanking staff and participants for the committee’s work.

Transcript Highlights:

• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• We’re the legislature. When we’re setting the budget, we can do that.
• , legislature, legislature, but<00:29:21.120><c> we</c><00:29:21.360><c> can</c><00:29:21.600><c> make

Transcript Highlights:

• Legislature who are absent from the state for the purpose of their constitutionally protected quorum
• Enables quorum breaking by minority factional legislature. I've got it written here.
• They're taking, disrupting the legislative process of the Texas legislature.
• This is just for members of the legislature that are breaking the quorum.
• We should make sure the executive and all the legislature are included. It's treated equally.

Bills: HB18

Committee: House Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• Members, let this legislature, through the LFC, I mean, through the...
• From what I understand, the ETA also has off-ramps or abilities to come back to the legislature.
• And I remember now you were not in the legislature when the ETA passed.
• I mean, the legislature once got involved in the process. When we created the ETA, we mandated.
• So I think the legislature ought to stay out of the way.

Bills: SM20 , SM9 , SJR6 , HB124 , SM20 , SM9 , SJR6 , HB124

Committees: Senate Senate Rules , Senate House Rules & Order Of Business

Keywords: youth violence, violence prevention, violence intervention, community violence intervention, credible messengers, peer support, restorative justice, violence interrupters, juvenile justice, at-risk youth, high-risk youth, public safety, Department of Health, New Mexico, statewide summit, data collection, reporting, interagency coordination, community-based organizations, law enforcement