Transcript Highlights:

• Review Act.
• Review Act.
• Review Act.
• Review Act.
• Review Act.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> impressed with her work after reviewing impressed with her work after reviewing her her her um,<
• have a deputy attorney general assigned to them who probably reviews these leases.
• </c><00:16:09.519><c> So,</c> probably reviews these leases. So, probably reviews these leases.
• that you are reviewing them, or not necessarily at the time that you're reviewing, but during your term
• reviewing them, or not necessarily at the time that you're reviewing, but during your term as a DLNR

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on Governor’s Message 666, the nomination of Rose Kea to the Commission on the Status of Women for a term ending June 30, 2029. Testimony was overwhelmingly in support from business and community members, and Kea described her background as a real estate broker, small business owner, and nonprofit volunteer leader, saying her experience with workplace equity and women-owned businesses would help the commission. Senators questioned her about the connection between her background and the commission’s work, and about how she would respond to current threats to women’s rights; she said the commission should serve as a unifying and leading force for gender equity. The committee later voted to advise and consent, with the chair’s recommendation adopted. The committee also considered SCR 128 and SR 107, which sought information on state lands leased to the federal government. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the resolutions as drafted, saying the AG does not maintain the lease inventory and that the request should instead go to the agencies that manage the land, such as DLNR, DOE, and DOT. The committee amended the measures to ask the AG to determine whether there are constitutional or other legal impediments to continued leasing or new leases, including whether nominal lease amounts violate law, and then passed both with amendments. Next, the committee took up STR 153 and SR 123, which request the County of Maui to complete the transfer of the Hoie roads, including Hoie Road F, to resolve jurisdictional ambiguities. The judiciary administrator testified in support, and the measures were passed, with the committee adopting the chair’s recommendation. Finally, the committee heard STR 179 and SR 149 on reviewing the Hawaii Revised Statutes for gender-neutral language. The LGBTQ+ Commission and the Commission on the Status of Women supported the effort, though the women’s commission asked for more time and a set date to dissolve the work group. The committee amended the resolutions to assign the review to the Legislative Reference Bureau, with consultation from the LGBTQ+ Commission, the Commission on the Status of Women, civil rights experts, and law-related organizations, and set interim and final reporting deadlines before passing the measures with amendments.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> relating to environmental review. relating to environmental review.
• </c> placebased environmental review placebased environmental review community<00:51:37.839><c> consultation
• consultation, no environmental review.
• future environmental review. Um but future environmental review.
• </c><01:23:59.120><c> Um</c> environmental review. Um environmental review.

Bills: HB1924 , HB2121 , HB1928 , HB1979 , HB1650 , HB1543 , HB1981 , HB1982

Committee: House Energy & Environmental Protection

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several measures related to waste, recycling, and environmental review. On HB 1924, which would establish a mattress stewardship program, the Department of Health said it stood on written testimony and offered comments, while Hawaii Reef and Ocean Coalition and one individual supported the bill and the International Sleep Products Association opposed it. No questions were raised and the committee moved on. A large portion of the hearing focused on HB 2121, which would prohibit the sale of disposable vapes in Hawaii. The Department of Health supported the measure but suggested the bill may be better placed in a different part of state law because the cited waste-management section regulates products after consumption, while still praising the effort to remove disposable vapes from the market and environment. Testimony in strong support came from the Coalition for Tobacco Free Hawaii Youth Council, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Hawaii COPD Coalition, Hawaii Health and Harm Reduction Center, the City and County of Honolulu, and many individuals; supporters emphasized youth vaping, toxic waste, lithium battery fire risks, and environmental harm. There was at least one opposing individual and the International Sleep Products Association was listed in opposition. The committee noted there were many written testimonies and no immediate vote was taken. The committee also heard HB 1928 on the deposit beverage container recycling program. The Department of Health stood on written testimony. The Solid Waste Task Force of Hawaii Environmental Change Agents and Upstream supported the bill but urged amendments to better integrate reuse and reusables, strengthen enforcement, clarify definitions, and protect existing redemption centers. The Hawaii Food Industry Association supported the concept of a backdrop program but preferred strengthening the existing program and raised concerns about undefined fees, existing infrastructure, and future audit costs. The Chamber of Commerce Hawaii supported the bill, and the chair said the measure needs work and that decision-making would occur in a few days. Finally, the committee took up HB 979 on environmental review and HB 1650 on environmental assessments. For HB 979, OPSD offered amendments, HCDA supported the bill but suggested clarifying the affordable-housing definition, Kauai Island Utility Cooperative supported it, and Earthjustice was asked about the court process for environmental challenges; the chair asked about shortening the challenge period and the relationship between environmental court, the intermediate court of appeals, and the Supreme Court. For HB 1650, OPSD and the State Historic Preservation Division stood on written testimony, OHA asked to retain historic sites, and several groups and individuals testified in support or opposition. Opponents argued that removing Wiki special district and historic sites from Chapter 343 trigger language would weaken environmental review and risk impacts to iwi kūpuna and historic resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Tax Review Commission is required to review all tax expenditures for the state of Minnesota, and
• We support that work by reviewing the legislative record and performing literature review, and providing
• </c><00:06:36.120><c> and</c> Performing literature review and Performing literature review and providing
• </c><00:17:11.199><c> whether</c> goes a really rigorous review whether goes a really rigorous review
• </c> our commission actuary who then reviews our commission actuary who then reviews them<00:29:41.440

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• We review all of our tax-exempt properties every year, and things changed.
• I love the idea of reviewing these things. I have no problem with that.
• Reviewing things is great, but I don't like an automatic increase.
• I'm intrigued by the concept of this review.
• And there is a, we're one of a minority of states that does no review.

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:46:26.599><c> it</c> reviews we have the auditees review it reviews we have the auditees review
• and so again they are legislative review and so again they are not<00:52:25.160><c> reviewed</c><00:
• We have a peer review of ourselves.
• We have a peer review of ourselves.
• throughout the project, we have—I'm reviewing it, the deputies reviewing it, another person who's in

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Each plan reviewer cranking out 10 reviews per week and a 30-day average turnaround time.
• <c> everybody</c><00:08:37.960><c> likes</c> review turnaround time everybody likes review turnaround
• 10 reviews<00:08:48.000><c> per</c><00:08:48.200><c> week</c> reviews per week reviews per week and<
• <00:13:06.040><c> for</c> reviewer for reviewer for that<00:13:07.440><c> area.
• Now, that's on initial review.

Summary: The Budget Subcommittee met without a quorum at first, then approved the minutes once a quorum was reached. The first presentation was from the Department of Housing, Buildings, and Construction within the Public Protection Cabinet. Commissioner Max Fuller and Deputy Commissioner David Moore reviewed the department’s licensing structure, noting about 50 license types and roughly 42,000 active licenses, with most tied to plumbing, HVAC, and electrical work. They compared Kentucky’s fees and requirements with neighboring states and said Kentucky is generally in line or slightly below surrounding states when local and contractor licensing requirements elsewhere are considered. The department also described staffing and inspection pressures. Officials said boiler inspections have a measurable backlog, with about 18% of state-jurisdiction boilers and pressure vessels past due statewide and a higher percentage in Jefferson County. They said building code plan review turnaround has risen from about 30 days to roughly 33–35 days, and that some areas are struggling to maintain same-day plumbing inspections and three-day HVAC inspections. Members asked whether the agency could handle increased housing construction, especially in rural areas; the department said it had requested additional plumbing staff and a plan reviewer, particularly for the Bowling Green/Warren County area, and noted that electrical inspectors are stretched across the state and are also pulled into disaster response work. The committee then heard from Kentucky Venues and the Kentucky State Fair Board on the Kentucky Exposition Center renovation and related operations. David Beck, board chairman David Williams, CFO Tony Shrek, and others said the project is progressing ahead of schedule, with keys to the new building expected in December and the facility already booked for future events. They reported strong tourism and economic impact, including record activity at the Exposition Center and downtown convention center, and said the Farm Machinery Show and other events continue to drive demand. Members asked about budget status, and the presenters said inflation, delayed access to funds due to the RFP/design process, and added costs have left them short of money to finish all planned work. They identified phase three funding needs, including food and beverage service improvements and completion of Freedom Hall seating, and said they are considering bringing food and beverage operations back under their control to improve efficiency and revenue. The meeting ended with no formal votes on the presentations and an announcement that the committee would meet again the following Tuesday.

Transcript Highlights:

• each review cycle.
• Auburn also went 100% electronic with its review process.
• It also saves permit fees because builders do not have to pay for plan review.
• For example, there may be uses in plan review that could help make the plan review process more efficient
• So would you say, or would you assume that maybe three review cycles would be adequate?

Committee: Senate Housing

Summary: The committee heard presentations on several housing finance and permitting tools. Chattanooga described its payment-in-lieu-of-taxes (PILOT) affordable housing program, which ties property tax abatements to the number and affordability level of units provided, using a calculator based on market rents and HUD affordability levels. Senators asked about the 15-year term, auditing, and whether the program was attracting private market-rate developers; the presenter said the first mixed-income project would include 278 units with 42 affordable units and that annual compliance monitoring is conducted. Shoreline then described its MFTE and inclusionary housing approach, emphasizing that longer 20-year exemptions helped make projects pencil out and that most recent development has clustered around light rail station areas; city staff said they will study whether the program should be adjusted further and noted the importance of the new state inclusionary housing law. The Department of Commerce and MRSC discussed tax increment financing, proportional impact fees, and the CHIP program. Commerce explained that TIF can fund public improvements such as roads, utilities, parks, broadband, and some affordable housing or child care facilities, but jurisdictions should only use it when development is likely to occur and the public benefit justifies the investment. On impact fees, Commerce said fees should be proportional to the actual infrastructure demand of a project and based on capital facility plans; it also noted that fee reductions for affordable housing must be backfilled through CHIP. Senators asked for more information on CHIP funding levels, project selection, and how much of it supports affordable housing. Commerce also presented the first annual permit-timelines report under the 2023 permitting reforms, saying 2024 data showed timelines still exceeding statutory goals and that future reports will examine factors such as paper versus electronic processing and local reform efforts. Auburn and Bellevue highlighted local permitting innovations. Auburn said it has moved to fully electronic review, uses MyBuildingPermit.com, has internal performance standards, and offers a stock-plan program that can cut later review to about a week; staff said most stamped plans still require at least two review cycles and that the city is watching how middle-housing code changes affect development. Bellevue described a pilot with GovStream AI to use artificial intelligence for pre-application assistance, document triage, and plan-review support, with the goal of reducing back-and-forth and improving application quality. Finally, Seattle presented a pilot for accessory dwelling unit co-development in which a mission-driven partner would finance, build, and manage backyard ADUs for homeowners, with the owner eventually buying out the partner; senators raised questions about rent-setting, management fees, liability, and what happens if a homeowner sells early. The committee also heard from community land trust representatives, who explained how ground leases and resale restrictions keep homes permanently affordable and allow public subsidies to serve multiple generations.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this bill would streamline State Parks real property. to waive its review and approve an approval
• That includes site visits, title work, environmental review, and other real estate functions.
• But the median on DGS reviewed their past five years of appraisal review data, and they found that the
• to take a look at the project and say, we're not going to have to go through the lengthy review for
• DGS would still do an initial review.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several natural resources and water-related bills. SB 224 by Senator Hurtado would require the Department of Water Resources to implement audit recommendations, improve climate-informed water supply forecasting, and provide annual updates to the Legislature; supporters emphasized the need for better transparency and more accurate water planning, and the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. SB 556, also by Senator Hurtado, would fund floodplain restoration in the Tulare Basin to reduce flooding, recharge groundwater, and provide habitat and other community benefits; local officials and conservation groups supported it, some initial concerns about Proposition 4 were resolved, and the bill passed as amended. SB 630 by Senator Allen would streamline State Parks and other state real property acquisitions by raising review thresholds and reducing duplicative approvals; conservation groups and park advocates supported the measure, while some members raised oversight and fiscal concerns, and it passed as amended. SB 718 by Senator Allen would reduce hunting and fishing license costs for low-income Californians, framed as helping subsistence users and disabled veterans and seniors, and it passed as amended. The committee also approved SB 427 by Senator Blakespear, which extends the sunset of the Habitat Conservation Fund from 2030 to 2035. Supporters said the fund has protected more than 1.2 million acres, leverages other funding, and supports habitat, recreation, and climate resilience; members highlighted its importance for areas like the Salton Sea and the need to protect the funding stream from future sweeps. SB 586 by Senator Jones, an e-moto off-highway vehicle bill, was taken up with little discussion and passed as amended. SB 639 by Senator Ashby would extend the deadline for Sacramento-area flood protection projects in the Natomas Basin and Beach Lake subareas from 2025 to 2030 to allow completion of remaining work and avoid delays to infill housing; city, county, and flood agency representatives supported it, and it passed as amended. Throughout the hearing, witnesses and members repeatedly emphasized water reliability, flood protection, conservation funding, and reducing bureaucratic delays. Several bills drew broad support from local governments, water agencies, tribes, and conservation organizations, and multiple members requested to be added as coauthors. All of the measures discussed were reported out of committee, generally with amendments and with some items left open for add-on votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do I have a motion to review? A second? Second. Any discussion on the motion?
• Seeing no other questions, do I have a motion to review? Second.
• So we are here today to ask your review of a proposed litigation settlement.
• So we are here today to ask your review of a proposed litigation settlement.
• I have a motion to review. Second. Is there any discussion on the motion?

Committee: All ALC-CLAIMS REVIEW/LITIGATION REPORTS OVERSIGHT

Summary: The committee first reviewed litigation reports from the Department of Labor and Licensing involving wage claims brought under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Members questioned the department’s authority, jurisdiction, use of attorney fees and costs, and whether defendants had to be licensed. The department explained it has long enforced wage and overtime laws, that the claims were small-dollar cases handled by investigators and counsel, and that one case had been paid and dismissed while others were unresolved or had service issues. The committee voted to review or batch-file the labor cases after discussion. The University of Arkansas System then reported three pending lawsuits: an age- and race-discrimination claim by a tenured professor that was resolved early; an ADA/FMLA retaliation claim by a former employee that survived in part on a motion to dismiss and was moving into discovery; and a Section 1983 claim against a UAMS sergeant arising from a parking-ticket dispute, with the university explaining that only punitive damages could create personal exposure for the officer. The committee reviewed each report and voted to accept them. The Department of Finance and Administration presented a proposed tax settlement reducing a sales-and-use tax assessment from about $48,000 to $20,000 and waiving interest and penalties, which the committee approved for review. The Claims Commission then presented several claims: an unpaid salary differential for a Department of Health employee, reissued warrants, unpaid DHS bills, and multiple negotiated settlements involving ATRS, UAMS, Arkansas State Police, and ARDOT. Members approved or affirmed most of these items, including a $65,000 settlement in the Tetronics/ATRS matter, a $150,000 medical-negligence settlement, and several vehicle-accident settlements. The most extended debate involved a tax-delinquent property sale claim by Sharon Greer and relatives. The claimant argued they were not properly notified and sought the $4,200 excess from the 2009 sale. Land Commissioner counsel explained the excess had escheated to the county after the statutory claim period expired, while members debated sovereign immunity, standing, heirs, and whether the committee could or should award money anyway. The committee ultimately chose to hold the matter over for further review in a future joint session rather than decide it immediately. The committee also heard appeals from dismissed claims, including a UAMS medical-negligence claim, a land-sale notice claim, a pothole claim against ARDOT, and a judicial-immunity claim against the Court of Appeals; most dismissals were affirmed, and the Simpson matter was held over for additional review after the claimant testified.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we had already geared up for readiness review.
• And I know we'll get the final report so we can review it too.
• As we reviewed the multiple states, we learned several things and several themes emerged.
• As we reviewed the multiple states, we learned several things and several themes.
• is accompanied by, or includes, a judicial review social study report, a JRSR.

Summary: The subcommittee heard two Department of Children and Families implementation updates on measures passed in prior sessions. First, DCF reviewed House Bill 633, which increased oversight of behavioral health managing entities through biennial independent audits, standardized claims-based reporting, and new monthly outcome dashboards. The department said it had awarded the inaugural audit to Ernst & Young, found no significant waste, fraud, or abuse, but identified process risks involving financial controls, claims validation, data access, and system access controls. DCF also described its transition to standardized behavioral health coding and said the new public dashboard of 11 measures is posted on its website, though members asked for easier access and for hard copies of the audit report. Members asked about how the department distinguishes Medicaid-covered services from department-funded services, how duplicate payment risks are being addressed, and whether the new reporting and audit requirements would improve oversight without disrupting services. DCF said it is the payer of last resort for uninsured or underinsured individuals, that some overlap with Medicaid is expected because Medicaid does not cover all behavioral health services, and that new claims edits and cross-checks are being built into the system. The department also said it had not found significant negative feedback from providers and that the new requirements are intended to improve transparency and accountability. DCF then updated the committee on Senate Bill 7012, covering human trafficking data collection, domestic violence center certification, limited background-screening exemptions, expanded recruitment for child welfare staff, subcontractor liability protections, a four-year treatment foster care pilot, case management efficiency recommendations, and a statewide study of residential bed capacity for child victims of commercial sexual exploitation. The department said several items are already complete or underway, including limited exemptions in the screening clearinghouse, while others are in procurement or rulemaking. It identified Circuits 4 and 12 as the treatment foster care pilot sites and said the pilot will launch in January 2026. Members questioned recruitment metrics, pilot timing, and report deadlines; the department said final reports are expected by January and that some dates were flexible because of procurement and implementation timelines. The meeting ended after the presentations and questions, and the subcommittee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The subcommittee reviewed reports, reviewed requests, and approved the following various temporary appropriations
• The subcommittee reviewed reports, reviewed requests, and approved the following various temporary appropriations
• In addition to the regular review items, the subcommittee received one contract for review from the District
• In addition to the regular review items, the subcommittee received one contract for review from the District
• You have a review of an agreement in there, and I'll need a motion to file this as reviewed.

Committee: All ARKANSAS LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (ALC)

Transcript Highlights:

• Reviews. So please come forward: Jeff Cunningham, Aline, Ms.
• Today we'll present the 2025 tax preference performance reviews.
• Next, the reviews are scheduled by a five-member citizen commission.
• As Aline mentioned at the outset, most of these are going to be briefer reviews...
• into the brief reviews here.

Summary: The committee first received a JLARC work session on the 2025 tax preference performance reviews, covering nine tax preferences and recommending legislative action on eight. JLARC reviewed natural gas transportation fuel preferences, travel agent and tour operator B&O rates, a property tax exemption for nonprofit low-income housing developers, and several shorter reviews including senior center property tax relief, a disabled veteran adapted housing remittance, trade convention nexus treatment, wholesale sales of fertilizer/pesticides/seed, a hazardous substance tax exemption for pesticides stored for out-of-state shipment, and three energy-related preferences for a silicon smelter. JLARC generally recommended continuing preferences that met stated or inferred objectives, modifying some to improve reporting or performance metrics, and allowing the unused silicon smelter preferences to expire. The Citizen Commission endorsed JLARC’s recommendations, and committee members asked a few clarifying questions, including about trends in travel agent/tour operator beneficiaries and the housing exemption’s performance metric and data issues. The committee then heard a work session and public hearing on Senate Bill 5754, which would create a Washington State public bank. A presentation from California public banking advocates and the Bank of North Dakota described public banks as government-owned financial institutions intended to keep public funds working locally, support lending for housing, infrastructure, and community development, and partner with community banks and credit unions. Committee questions focused on leverage, liquidity, constitutional issues, and how the model would interact with existing state investment and debt structures. Staff summarized the bill’s structure, including activation conditions, governance, powers, and fiscal impacts, noting the fiscal note was largely indeterminate and startup costs could be significant. Public testimony on SB 5754 was divided. Supporters included statewide elected officials, county and city officials, labor, educators, community advocates, and residents, who argued the bank could lower borrowing costs, improve access to capital, keep public money in Washington, and help finance infrastructure, housing, and disaster resilience. Opponents included community bankers and county treasurers, who warned about risks to safety and liquidity of public funds, questioned the need for a new institution given existing programs, and argued the proposal lacked a proven track record in Washington. The hearing concluded with no vote taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• instead of just administrative review.
• instead of just administrative review.
• instead of just administrative review.
• instead of just administrative review.
• I had an administrative review.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee hearing on SAO performance audits, State
• The office operates independently of the legislature and the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee
• As you can see on the graph, we found that for each year in our review period, the courts reviewed released
• We have an overall pretrial FTA rate of 4.5%, which is, again, a phenomenal review.
• of the courts that we reviewed do offer pretrial services to some extent.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee held a hearing on a State Auditor’s Office performance audit about expanding pretrial services in Washington. Audit staff said most of the 14 courts reviewed wanted to expand or implement pretrial services but faced barriers such as funding, limited community resources, and public safety concerns. They also reported that only three courts could provide usable data, that pretrial service use varied across courts, and that some demographic disparities appeared in the data, including lower rates of pretrial services for Hispanic defendants at two Spokane courts and for Black defendants at Spokane Superior Court. The audit also found that many courts do not collect pretrial data in an accessible format and recommended clearer guidance, better data systems, stakeholder outreach, and evaluation of program effectiveness. The State Auditor’s Office also noted that the Administrative Office of the Courts’ pretrial pilot program had received legislative funding and was being expanded. Representatives from Spokane Municipal Court, Grays Harbor County District Court, and Yakima County discussed their local programs and data. Spokane officials described a robust integrated system and said their pretrial services unit, launched in 2021, had reduced bail use, jail time, failure-to-appear rates, and recidivism, while helping judges make quicker release decisions. Grays Harbor staff echoed the audit’s findings on cost savings and said data collection is labor-intensive for limited-jurisdiction courts, especially without dedicated staff. They also described using risk assessment tools and pilot funding to support alternatives to jail. Yakima and Spokane participants emphasized that stable funding and standalone pretrial services units would improve program consistency and outcomes. Committee members asked about how pretrial services reduce detention time, how courts can better communicate cost savings and public safety benefits, and why statewide data collection is difficult. Audit staff and court representatives said early assessments, better information at first appearance, and integrated case-management systems help reduce jail stays and improve release decisions. The hearing ended without formal committee action, and the chair adjourned the meeting after inviting written public testimony on the audit topics.

Transcript Highlights:

• Welcome to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee hearing on SAO performance audits, State
• The office operates independently of the Legislature and the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee
• As you can see on the graph, we found that for each year in our review period, the courts reviewed released
• We have an overall pretrial FTA rate of 4.5%, which is, again, a phenomenal review.
• of the courts that we reviewed do offer pretrial services to some extent.

Summary: The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on expanding the use of pretrial services in Washington. Auditors said most of the 14 local courts they reviewed wanted to expand or implement pretrial services but faced barriers such as funding, limited community resources, and public safety concerns. The audit found variation in how courts use pretrial services, potential disparities in who receives them, and major data limitations because most courts do not track pretrial outcomes in an accessible, standardized way. Auditors recommended that local courts engage stakeholders early, improve data collection and evaluation, and that the Administrative Office of the Courts provide more standardized guidance and support. They also noted the legislature had funded an AOC pilot program to help courts expand pretrial services. Court representatives from Spokane Municipal Court, Grays Harbor County District Court, and Yakima County described their own programs and supported the audit’s general conclusions. Spokane officials said their pretrial unit, funded locally and built around risk and needs assessments, had reduced bail use, detention time, failures to appear, and recidivism, but emphasized the need for stable funding and better public understanding of pretrial alternatives. Grays Harbor staff similarly said pretrial supervision and least-restrictive alternatives save jail costs and reduce reoffending, but that collecting data across all cases is labor-intensive and difficult without dedicated staff. Yakima and Spokane also highlighted the value of integrated case-management systems and centralized data tracking. Committee members asked about how reduced detention time occurs, how courts can communicate cost savings and public safety outcomes, and why many courts struggle to track pretrial data. Auditors explained that early risk and financial screening helps judges make quicker release decisions and that better data and stakeholder communication are key to building support. No formal action or vote was taken; the committee held the required hearing and then adjourned after public testimony was invited and written testimony information was provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a robust community reviewer process to involve non-DEED experts in the review and recommendation
• </c> you examining as part of this review you examining as part of this review process<00:26:33.840><
• reviewers.
• </c> a community reviewer would get to me. a community reviewer would get to me.
• </c><00:35:44.720><c> I</c> the reviewer process is important. I the reviewer process is important.

Bills: HF4072 , HF3691 , HF4613

Committee: House Workforce, Labor, and Economic Development Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> as the Contract Review Committee. as the Contract Review Committee.
• </c> through contract review. through contract review.
• So I would contract review something.
• </c> some sort of review to it. some sort of review to it.
• </c> any contract review any contract review uh<00:18:51.280><c> contract,</c><00:18:52.360><c> any</

Transcript Highlights:

• The most relevant here is NEPA review, the National Environmental Policy Act.
• NEPA review has to be completed prior to construction.
• How are we going to accelerate EHP review?
• That's the environmental and historic preservation review.
• That means that we're able to move a lot faster on NEPA reviews.

Summary: The committee first heard an update from the Department of Commerce’s new state broadband director on Washington’s BEAD broadband program and permitting process. Jordan Arnold said Washington’s final BEAD proposal has been submitted to NTIA but remains unapproved after months of back-and-forth over federal rule changes, technology choices, cost, and tribal sovereignty. He said the program is expected to bring about $1 billion in broadband investment, connecting roughly 166,000 homes and small businesses, with a mix of fiber, fixed wireless, and low-earth-orbit satellite. He also outlined permitting challenges, including rights-of-way and environmental/historic reviews, and said the office is working on permitting roundtables, federal coordination, and NEPA expertise to speed reviews. Members asked about the interaction of NEPA and SEPA, the reduction in deployable federal BEAD dollars, the long-term value of fiber versus other technologies, and possible coordination with other infrastructure permitting efforts. The committee then took executive action on House Bill 2684, which would add Middle Eastern and North African groups to the Office of Minority and Women’s Business Enterprises’ socially disadvantaged certification framework. Four proposed amendments were considered and all failed: an amendment narrowing the rebuttable presumption to groups with specific current discrimination, an amendment requiring disaggregated subgroup data and limiting use of aggregated data, an amendment tying the rules to the state constitution, and two amendments requiring consistency with federal law and Attorney General review. After debate over whether the bill was too broad or needed more specificity, the committee voted 7-4 to report HB 2684 out with a do pass recommendation. Finally, the committee unanimously approved House Joint Memorial 4012, which urges Congress to address the 20-year rule affecting certain combat-injured veterans and seeks parity in recognition and benefits. The memorial was reported out with a do pass recommendation by an 11-0 vote, with two members excused.

Transcript Highlights:

• Over 19,000 were reviewed by CDPH.
• The fifth exemption gets reviewed.
• Is it just a review of those five exemptions, or is it a review of your entire patient portfolio?
• have a rate review, um, a rate review, but not rate regulation.
• They review it.

Committee: Senate Health