Transcript Highlights:

• with resident students.
• So if we can add more resident students without decreasing the number of non-resident students, there's
• Non-resident students.
• non-residents.
• status and end up paying non-resident tuition, despite their families being residents of California,

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, chaired by Assemblymember Alvarez, held a hearing focused on University of California budget issues. The committee reviewed UC core operations funding, enrollment trends, federal funding threats, Title IX implementation, and basic needs support. Major themes included the end of the Governor’s multi-year UC compact, the state’s fiscal outlook, UC’s enrollment growth, and the potential impacts of federal policy changes on research, health care, and student aid. On core funding, the Department of Finance described the Governor’s proposal to continue compact-related support, defer some payments, and authorize a cash-flow loan. The LAO recommended a smaller or no base increase, earmarking some funds for capital renewal, retiring deferrals when possible, avoiding new compact commitments, and funding UC annually rather than through compacts. UC argued that the compact has supported enrollment growth, student services, and operating costs, but said campuses face rising expenses, structural deficits, and limited reserves. Members questioned the effects of deferrals on students and discussed the need to prioritize less harmful reductions if cuts become necessary. The enrollment panel focused on UC’s growth in California resident enrollment and the nonresident replacement plan at Berkeley, UCLA, and UC San Diego. The LAO recommended maintaining the current enrollment target, funding enrollment separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident replacement plan, and holding enrollment flat in 2027-28. UC said it has already met compact enrollment goals, grown California undergraduate enrollment by about 18,800 students, and that further growth depends on ongoing state support. The committee also discussed the cost of enrollment growth, possible differential nonresident tuition, and a reporting request for UC to analyze the nonresident replacement approach; the motion to adopt supplemental reporting language passed. The hearing also covered federal funding risks, with the LAO and UC warning that federal changes could affect research grants, medical center reimbursement, and student financial aid. UC said research cancellations and suspensions are disrupting labs and graduate student support, while federal health policy changes could increase uncompensated care at UC hospitals. In the Title IX update, UC described its systemwide civil rights structure, annual student training, and campus support offices, and members praised the work while asking about ongoing concerns and intersegmental collaboration. The final basic-needs item began with Finance stating the Governor’s budget does not change ongoing support, but the transcript cuts off before further discussion or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• The permanent residency application requirement, which relies on an expensive, complex status adjustment
• You can be lawfully, so because the bill requires that you apply for lawful permanent residence, yet
• So the bill encourages or requires that you file for the lawful permanent residence C. to be eligible
• This bill would require persons who are in status permanent residents to pay out-of-state tuition, so
• ... residency requirements for the state, being a state resident who are not able to apply for permanent

Bills: HB232

Committee: House Higher Education

Keywords: disaster recovery, natural disaster, weather disaster, emergency relief, flood relief, hurricane relief, storm damage, wildfire, tornado, hail, windstorm, extreme heat, ice storm, snowstorm, property damage, personal injury, temporary housing, relocation assistance, lost wages, state emergency management

Transcript Highlights:

• It also requires park owners to provide residents with timely access to the property after any evacuation
• It protects residents' rights to access their own property after a devastating disaster, and it requires
• SB 1093 would require a park owner to let residents back onto a property seven days after an evacuation
• residents.
• SB 1238 will protect homeowners who reside in communities with a homeowners association by requiring

Committee: House Housing and Community Development

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I AM GEORGE HARPER, A RESIDENT OF ST.
• LAW TO PROTECT RESIDENTS LIKE US AND CCRC'S.
• AS YOU'VE SEEN TODAY RESIDENTS COME FROM ALL WALKS OF LIFE.
• WE'RE GOING TO START FINGERPRINTING RESIDENCE AND BACKGROUND SCREENING OF RESIDENTS WHO SERVE ON THOSE
• I SHOULD CLARIFY THAT REQUIREMENT.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Residents' rights and financial interests.
• So are we going to start fingerprinting residents and background screening of residents who serve on
• It was a terrible situation for residents.
• required by federal regulators.
• I should clarify the requirements.

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several insurance, financial regulation, and public safety bills. SB 1656, a large Office of Insurance Regulation bill, was taken up with a delete-all amendment and extensive discussion. The bill would increase transparency in insurance rates and mitigation data, update reciprocal insurer rules, limit use-and-file rate filings, expand cybersecurity breach notification, and strengthen oversight of continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). Residents and senior advocates generally supported stronger oversight to prevent bankruptcies like the Unison case, while CCRC operators and industry groups warned that lien authority, reserve requirements, and other provisions could raise borrowing costs and burden well-run communities. The committee adopted the delete-all amendment and then reported the bill favorably after debate and public testimony. The committee also passed SB 1658 on the public records database for uniform mitigation verification forms, with a clarifying amendment protecting policyholders’ personal information. SB 1612 on financial institutions was reported favorably after an amendment and substitute amendment dealing with credit union investment limits and reimbursement rules for board members. SB 1740, an insurance bill aimed at reducing premiums and insolvency risk, was amended to prioritize rate-decrease filings and prohibit AI as the sole basis for claim denials; it was then reported favorably. SB 1212 on firefighter health and safety was amended to add occupational disease language and other firefighter protections, including safer gear, cancer prevention, and possible telehealth mental health services, and was also reported favorably. Finally, SB 1184 on residual market insurers was amended to preserve existing excess-and-surplus line standards, strengthen consumer disclosures, and clarify Citizens-related appointment rules before being reported favorably. Throughout the meeting, committee members repeatedly noted that several bills were still being refined with stakeholders, and multiple public witnesses testified in support of or opposition to the CCRC and insurance provisions, focusing on resident protection, financial stability, and unintended cost impacts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Enter the teacher residency model.
• . ...highest amount at $24,000 per resident in different districts, and they do have requirements as
• So districts using residencies, the residencies have to meet certain standards.
• So our residents take two years to get their master's. The first year is the residency year.
• There are residencies that are also bachelor's degree granting, and the residency year happens in the

Committee: House Education

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Residents' rights and financial interests.
• So are we going to start fingerprinting residents and background screening residents who serve on those
• It was a terrible situation for residents.
• required by federal regulators.
• I should clarify the requirements.

Committee: Senate Banking and Insurance

Summary: The committee heard and advanced several insurance, financial regulation, and public safety bills. The most extensive discussion centered on SB 1656, a major Office of Insurance Regulation bill covering reciprocal insurers, rate transparency, data calls, cybersecurity notification, and stronger oversight of continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). The sponsor and OIR described the bill as aimed at transparency and preventing insolvencies, especially after recent CCRC failures. CCRC residents and industry representatives testified both in support and in opposition, with supporters emphasizing resident protection and opponents warning about liens, reserve requirements, management-company regulation, and higher costs. After debate and assurances that problematic provisions would be refined, the committee adopted a delete-all amendment and then reported the bill favorably. The committee also passed SB 1658, which creates a public records framework for the uniform mitigation verification of inspection form database while protecting policyholders’ personal information; a clarifying amendment was adopted before the bill was reported favorably. SB 1612 on financial institutions was approved after a substitute amendment restored current limits on credit union investments and kept only reimbursement, not salary, authority for certain board members and officers. SB 1740, an insurance bill intended to reduce premiums and insurer insolvency risk, was amended to prioritize rate-decrease filings and prohibit claim denials based solely on AI, then reported favorably. Two public-safety bills also moved forward. SB 1212 on firefighter health and safety would update OSHA-related protections, address toxic exposure in gear, encourage safer replacement equipment, and support best practices and mental health resources; an amendment refined terminology and added related provisions, and the bill was reported favorably. SB 1184 on residual market insurers was amended to preserve existing consumer protections and disclosure rules for excess and surplus lines and to clarify Citizens-related appointment requirements before being reported favorably. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly noted ongoing stakeholder negotiations and intent to refine several bills further in later committee stops.

Transcript Highlights:

• how cost savings will be passed on to future residents.
• This requirement does not bind owners to pursue any specific path. Residents simply...
• Second, it requires park owners to provide residents with timely access to the property after any evacuation
• Second, residents were concerned about communication from landowners. 5% of residents wish to rebuild
• about providing information to the residents.

Committee: Senate Housing

Summary: The committee heard AB 736, a proposed $10 billion Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2026, with Assembly Member Buffy Wicks and numerous housing, local government, labor, and advocacy groups testifying in strong support. Supporters said the bond would fund multifamily housing, permanent supportive housing, homeownership, preservation, farmworker, tribal, and other programs, and argued that the state needs new capital because prior bond funds are exhausted and many shovel-ready projects are waiting. Habitat for Humanity California opposed the bill unless it was amended to dedicate 10% of bond proceeds to Cal Home for affordable homeownership, and several senators said they supported the bond but wanted Cal Home strengthened. The committee voted do pass to Senate Appropriations, with the measure placed on call for absent members. The committee also heard SB 1361 by Senator Durazo, which would limit local governments from using SB 79 transit-oriented housing requirements as a reason to stall or condition planned transit projects. Los Angeles Metro, the Building Trades, and several cities and advocacy groups supported the bill, saying it would protect transit investments, jobs, and federal funding from opposition tied to future density around transit stops. Several groups that had initially opposed or been concerned about the bill, including West Hollywood, Streets for All, Greenbelt Alliance, California YIMBY, and the Bay Area Council, withdrew opposition or moved to neutral after amendments. The committee approved the bill as amended to Senate Local Government, with the measure also placed on call. Senator Grayson presented SB 1003, creating an Infrastructure Partnership Financing Program to help local governments and developers fund infrastructure needed for infill housing, and SB 1014, which would require local agencies to provide early, good-faith estimates and itemized lists of required on-site and off-site improvements for housing projects. Both bills were supported by housing advocates, Habitat for Humanity, SPUR, and industry groups, who said the measures would reduce uncertainty, late fees, and project delays. The committee advanced both bills as amended to Senate Appropriations, placing them on call. The committee also took up SB 908, which streamlines energy-code-compliant window replacement and limits aesthetic review, especially for residential replacements; it passed as amended to Appropriations after support from affordable housing and green building groups and no opposition. Later, Senator Allen presented SB 1092 and SB 1093 on mobile home park preservation and post-disaster protections. SB 1092 would give residents notice and an opportunity to make a competing bid when a park owner intends to sell, with supporters arguing it would help preserve unsubsidized affordable housing and protect displaced residents, while park owner representatives argued it would devalue properties, create litigation risk, and interfere with market transactions. SB 1093 would require more communication, access, and consideration of rebuilding or closure after disasters, and would restore certain resident reimbursement rights; supporters cited the Palisades fire and survey data showing residents lacked information and access, while opponents said the bill imposed onerous timelines, liability issues, and penalties and could force owners into rebuilding or compensation assumptions they disputed. Both bills were discussed at length, but the transcript ends before final recorded votes on them.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> compliance requirements. compliance requirements.
• </c> the residents. the residents.
• </c> residents of a sale to the residents. residents of a sale to the residents.
• </c> or force residents out. or force residents out.
• </c> costly requirements. costly requirements.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It also requires park owners to provide residents with timely access to the property after any evacuation
• It protects residents' rights to access their own property after a devastating disaster, and it requires
• SB 1093 would require a park owner to let residents back onto a property seven days after an evacuation
• residents.
• SB 1238 will protect homeowners who reside in communities with a homeowners association by requiring

Summary: The committee heard several housing-related bills, beginning with SB 1003, which would create pro-housing enhanced infrastructure financing districts to help local governments fund infrastructure needed for housing developments. The author and supporters argued that infrastructure costs often prevent projects from penciling out, while the chair expressed support and said the bill would be taken up later when quorum was available. SB 1014 followed, proposing new disclosure requirements for local jurisdictions to provide good-faith estimates of on-site and off-site improvements within 30 days of application, with supporters saying it would reduce late surprises and opposition from several cities citing implementation concerns with the 30-day timelines. The committee then took up SB 802, a Sacramento-region bill requiring a joint powers authority to coordinate housing and homelessness services. Senator Ashby and former Mayor Darrell Steinberg argued that Sacramento’s fragmented system has failed for years and that a JPA would improve accountability, coordination, and use of state funds. The bill drew broad support from local officials, service providers, business groups, and advocates, while some county and city representatives registered opposition or neutral concerns about state-mandated local governance. Several committee members said they were persuaded by the need for regional coordination, though some raised concerns about local control; the chair noted the bill would be moved when quorum allowed. The committee also heard SB 1092 and SB 1093, both focused on mobile home park residents after disasters or park sales. SB 1092 would give residents a right of first opportunity to match a sale offer for a park, with supporters saying it protects vulnerable seniors and preserves affordable housing, while park owners and their representatives argued it would devalue property and raise constitutional and financing concerns. SB 1093 would require more transparent communication, access to property, and consideration of rebuilding or closure after a disaster; supporters cited the long uncertainty faced by Palisades residents, while opponents warned about liability, safety, and burdensome review requirements. Members split along similar lines, with some emphasizing property rights and market impacts and others stressing the need to protect residents and preserve scarce affordable housing.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when you talk about leaving in the North Dakota resident requirement, that's really going to create
• A resident requirement, that's really going to create a lot of complications for any businesses that
• Evan said that if they simply removed the resident requirement, he thought that would capture what the
• Evan said yes: they should keep the 10-mile radius and remove the resident requirement.
• If you just get rid of that resident requirement, then you don't have to worry about people from all

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The conference committee discussed a child care tax credit bill and focused mainly on narrowing the eligibility language. Members agreed to remove a proposed 10-mile limitation tied to the state line at first, then revisited the issue after concerns from the Tax Department and Legislative Council about remote workers, border communities, and out-of-state daycare use. Testimony from the Greater North Dakota Chamber supported the credit as a more flexible version of a prior grant program, while committee members debated whether the credit should apply only to North Dakota residents, employees working in North Dakota, or child care providers located in North Dakota or border cities. After extended discussion, the committee settled on keeping the 10-mile language and striking the resident requirement from the definition of “qualified employee,” with the intent of better capturing border-area workers while avoiding broader unintended coverage. Members noted the bill is aimed at workforce and child care access, especially in Fargo, Grand Forks, and other border areas, and acknowledged that the language may still need adjustment in the future. The Tax Department and Legislative Council indicated the revised language would be workable. Representative Foss moved the final amendment to the conference committee report, Senator Powers seconded, and the motion passed on a roll call vote with all members voting yes: Chairman Rummel, Senator Marseille, Senator Powers, Representative Doctor, Representative Foss, and Representative Anderson. The committee then adjourned, with House and Senate members designated to carry the report forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• , those very low-income residents.
• , those very low-income residents.
• encourage but it's not sort of a requirement?
• I'm a resident at Oak Point, 406 Green Street.
• up with how she treats other residents.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Housing

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Housing held a hearing on a wide range of housing bills focused on manufactured housing, condominiums, public housing, tiny homes, and protections for elderly and disabled residents. Chairs Haggerty and Cyr opened by emphasizing the importance of these housing types and the need to hear from many speakers. Testimony on manufactured housing was especially extensive and sharply divided. Supporters of bills such as H. 1475, S. 990, and H. 1513 argued that out-of-state corporate owners are buying communities, raising rents and fees, reducing services, and exploiting legal gray areas. Residents and lawmakers from affected communities like Taunton, Middleborough, Attleboro, and Oak Point described steep rent disparities, fear of displacement, and the need for stronger protections, while Representative Hawkins urged an omnibus approach and said the bill would create a local board to ensure compliance with existing law. Opponents, including the Massachusetts Manufactured Housing Association and Hometown America’s counsel, argued that current law already provides protections, that the bills would create uncertainty or unfairly restrict owners, and that H. 1475 was intended to clarify the post-Blake legal landscape. The committee also heard testimony on condominium reform through S. 980, with owners describing lack of transparency, surprise assessments, and limited accountability, and urging updates to Chapter 183A and more owner rights. Public housing bills also drew support from housing authority advocates. MassNAHRO backed S. 955, H. 1517, H. 1512, H. 1550, and H. 1551, saying housing authorities need more flexibility to preserve and expand affordable housing. Witnesses supported tax relief for replacement public housing units and streamlined procurement rules, arguing these changes would help projects move faster and make better use of capital funds. Committee members asked questions about PILOT agreements, tax treatment of new developments, and whether state and federal public housing would be treated similarly. The committee also heard from Senator Lovely and advocates for S. 1007/H. 1525, which would prevent and respond to bullying of elderly and disabled residents in housing. Supporters described the bills as a long-needed response to harassment in senior and public housing, calling for building-level plans, staff training, and AG oversight; Jerry Halberstadt said the measure should be strengthened with enforcement and tenant advocacy support. Pamela and other witnesses described severe personal impacts from bullying and management retaliation. Another major topic was S. 1474/H. 1474 on movable tiny houses as permanent dwellings and accessory dwelling units. Supporters, including Representative DeCoste, Vera Struck, Kaylee DeCrease, and Abundant Housing Massachusetts, said tiny homes are a safe, affordable, sustainable option for seniors, workers, and others facing the housing shortage, and urged the committee to legalize them and align state rules with emerging standards. They also discussed tax classification and the need for a clear building code and DMV category. Finally, H. 1476 on pet-friendly elderly housing drew support from animal welfare groups, who said the bill would restore and modernize a prior pet program, expand access across state-aided housing, limit pet deposits, and reduce pet surrender caused by housing barriers. No votes were taken during the hearing; the committee primarily received testimony and questions on the bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the Teacher Residency Act Changes.
• We have gone from 12 residents in 2018 to almost 100 residents now, and the residents who are attracting
• into the program are very diverse. residents now, and the residents we're attracting into the program
• Over the past four years, the residency programs have prepared more than 1,000 residents and strengthened
• Second, adjusting the post-residency service requirement for teaching anywhere in New Mexico, rather

Bills: SB83 , SB106 , SB107 , SB123 , SJR1

Committee: House House Education

Keywords: ecological monitoring, sustainability, tribal engagement, education, research funding, graduate scholarship, higher education funding, New Mexico, appropriation, financial aid, out-of-school programming, education funding, youth programs, affordability, nonprofit organizations, defibrillators, public schools, health and safety, emergency response, school elections

Transcript Highlights:

• Will reside.
• It doesn't require...
• affordability requirements.
• Requirements, our affordability requirements, our labor requirements, that the environmental review
• He said existing law requires mobile home park residents to have access to heating systems, but the same

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development heard a long agenda focused mainly on housing production, higher education facilities, homelessness, and permitting reform. Early items included AB 6, which would direct HCD to convene a working group on allowing three- to ten-unit “missing middle” housing to be built under the Residential Code rather than the Building Code; AB 48, a higher education bond proposal that would fund campus repairs, modernization, disaster recovery, and student/employee housing; and AB 76, which would clarify a Chula Vista university innovation district exemption so the project can include academic buildings and housing without conflicting with surplus land rules. Supporters emphasized affordability, cost savings, student housing needs, and access to education, while members raised questions about implementation, affordability requirements, and project scope. The committee later took votes on these items, with AB 6, AB 48, and AB 76 all moving forward on unanimous or near-unanimous votes to Appropriations. Members also heard AB 595, which would create a state homeownership tax credit pilot to support affordable for-sale housing. The author and supporters argued that California’s homeownership rate is at historic lows and that the bill would help close racial wealth gaps by financing homes working families can buy. The committee approved AB 595 and sent it to Appropriations. The consent calendar, including several other housing-related bills, was also approved unanimously. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act of 2025, which would require ongoing state investment and a financing plan to address homelessness and housing affordability. The author and witnesses described the scale of homelessness, the limits of one-time funding, and the need for sustained, accountable funding streams. After testimony from housing advocates and people with lived experience, the committee passed AB 1165 on a 10-0 vote to Appropriations. Finally, the committee heard AB 609, a CEQA reform bill that would create a simplified exemption for qualifying infill housing projects in already developed areas. Supporters framed it as a targeted way to reduce delays and costs for housing near jobs and transit, while opponents from environmental justice, labor, and tribal groups warned it could reduce public participation, weaken protections for disadvantaged communities, and create consultation concerns for tribal cultural resources. The author said the bill would not change zoning or affordability tools and would continue to work with opponents on amendments. The bill was moved forward after extensive discussion, with members noting ongoing negotiations on tribal consultation and labor concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• It allows an agency to adopt a policy requiring proof of residency, such as a government-issued photo
• This bill clarifies that if an agency chooses to require proof of residency, it must accept that proof
• It allows an agency to adopt a policy requiring proof of residency, such as a government-issued photo
• This bill clarifies that if an agency chooses to require proof of residency, it must accept that proof
• Kelton: Yes, so just to clarify, the residency requirement is already in state law, and so we're just

Committee: Senate Veterans, Military Affairs, & Public Protection

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In residency programs, since we have people who aren't on LESC yet, we'll go over what a residency program
• The bill requires teacher residents to serve a minimum of three years at any public school instead of
• resident.
• that isn't required.
• When you look at the training requirements, training was already required.

Bills: HB30 , HB120 , HJR1 , SB210 , SB306

Committee: Senate House Education

Keywords: teacher residency, Teacher Residency Act, public schools, teacher preparation, educator pipeline, teacher recruitment, teacher retention, student teachers, apprenticeship, co-teaching, mentor teachers, residency stipend, teacher salary, level one teacher, charter schools, school districts, New Mexico education, teacher workforce, principal stipend, cohort model

Summary: The Senate Education Committee began with announcements about likely upcoming meetings and a reminder that public testimony could be limited if bills drew large crowds. Members also introduced student shadows and briefly recognized them. The committee then took up House Bill 30, which would revise the Teacher Residency Act to strengthen teacher recruitment and retention by tying resident stipends more closely to minimum level-one teacher salaries, increasing support for residents who already hold bachelor’s degrees, and giving residents more flexibility to complete their service in any public school rather than only the sponsoring district. The sponsor and supporters from educator preparation programs, unions, and advocacy groups said the bill would make residency programs more sustainable, help rural districts, and improve teacher preparation. The bill received support from the Public Education Department and several education organizations, and the committee voted due pass. The committee next heard House Bill 120, as amended, which would clarify and limit the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. The sponsor explained that the bill came from a task force and is intended to clarify existing law rather than create a new mandate, with clearer definitions, stronger documentation, family notification, and limits on dangerous practices such as prone, mechanical, or chemical restraint. Supporters included PED, the special education ombuds office, disability rights advocates, teachers’ unions, parents, and civil rights groups, who emphasized student safety, trauma prevention, and better training for staff. One opposition witness from the school superintendents’ association argued the bill could add burdens and that more time was needed to implement current law. Committee members raised concerns about protecting teachers and aides during violent incidents; sponsors responded that the bill is meant to give staff clearer guidance and emergency-response tools, not replace disciplinary procedures. The committee voted due pass. House Joint Resolution 1, a constitutional amendment to create nominating commissions for university regents, was then presented. The sponsor said the goal is to reduce purely political appointments by having nonpartisan commissions recommend regent candidates, while also changing how student regents are selected so students have a direct voice rather than the university president choosing the student regent. AFT New Mexico supported the measure, citing concerns about donor or insider appointments and backing student representation. Committee members questioned how many commissions would be created, who would appoint their members, and how many names would be sent to the governor; the sponsor said those details would be set later in enabling legislation. The committee approved the resolution on a due pass vote, sending it onward in the process. The committee also quickly passed Senate Bill 306, which would align state higher education accreditation language with federal terminology by removing the distinction between regionally and non-regionally accredited institutions and changing reporting and fee requirements for smaller private institutions. Finally, Senate Bill 210, an appropriation for athletic and related facilities at New Mexico Highlands University, drew the most debate. Supporters said the university’s athletic facilities are outdated and inadequate, especially for women’s soccer and track, and that the project would help student-athletes and Title IX compliance. Committee members questioned the $80 million request, noting that only $3 million was currently in the budget for the three Division II schools and expressing concern about priorities amid other education funding needs. The sponsor and university president said the project could be phased and that private fundraising is also being pursued. Despite reservations and some no votes, the committee ultimately voted due pass. The chair closed by reminding members to plan on meeting Monday at 9 a.m. and said the committee was adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• And age is required to make this information available to the public and to residents and prospective
• residents. ...to make this information available to the public and to residents and prospective residents
• And then we recommend requiring that CCRCs give prospective residents the consumer guide.
• The one thing here, though, 'required that CCRCs give prospective residents the consumer guide'— when
• I don't think it requires appropriation. Requires appropriation?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission met to review its draft final report on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs), with most of the discussion focused on whether recommendations required unanimous consensus and how to handle disagreements in the report. Members agreed that consensus meant no stated opposition, and several participants argued that unresolved issues should still be described in the report rather than omitted. The chairs said the report would include agreed-upon recommendations, note areas without consensus, and preserve written comments or dissent letters submitted by members. The draft report’s findings and slides were reviewed charge by charge, including CCRC definitions, financial condition, entrance fee refunds, regulatory oversight, advertising practices, and closure/change-of-ownership procedures. Members suggested several factual and wording edits, including clarifying financial data sources, correcting a presenter’s name, refining language about entrance fee use and refund timing, and revising statements about Attorney General authority and CCRC advertising. There was also discussion about the need to distinguish nonprofit and for-profit CCRCs and to better explain how different care levels and licensing structures are described. On recommendations, the commission kept the proposal to advance the disclosure bill (S. 478) and update the consumer guide, but removed a recommendation for annual open board meetings after objections that it was inadequate. The group spent considerable time debating whether to recommend resident representation on CCRC boards, timely refund requirements for entrance fees, and possible state registration or definition changes for CCRCs, but no consensus was reached on those items. The chairs said the final report would be completed by the statutory August 1 deadline, with final written comments due before then and the report and meeting materials posted on the legislature website.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:01:21.960><c> the</c> medical school tuition requires the medical school tuition requires the
• </c> that's the employ to do their residency that's the employ to do their residency it<00:05:07.600>
• that we're putting in to requirement that we're putting in to require<00:08:02.919><c> them</c><00:08
• <00:09:09.160><c> tuition</c><00:09:09.519><c> is</c> resident tuition is resident tuition is 36,000<
• </c> shortage is to have more residency shortage is to have more residency training<00:13:15.839><c>

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Higher Education heard Senate Bill 101, which would require University of Hawaiʻi John A. Burns School of Medicine graduates who paid in-state tuition to serve as physicians in Hawaiʻi for at least two years after residency or fellowship, beginning with the class of 2029. The Deputy Attorney General said the bill addressed a matter of statewide concern. JABSOM Dean Sam Shoemaker testified in opposition, arguing the school already uses scholarships, loan repayment, and other incentives, and that the strongest predictor of where physicians practice is where they complete residency; he said the school is working to expand residency slots, neighbor-island training, and class size. Supporters argued the state faces a severe physician shortage and should do more to ensure publicly subsidized students remain in Hawaiʻi. The committee ultimately recommended passage with amendments, including a statewide concern statement, and deferred the measure to July 31, 2025; the vote was adopted. The committee then heard Senate Bill 19, which creates funds to establish a Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree program on Maui. University of Hawaiʻi and nursing workforce representatives testified in support, saying there is ample capacity on Maui and strong demand for higher nursing education. Members discussed the broader nursing pathway, including existing associate and bachelor’s programs at UH campuses and the need to improve access for Maui and nearby communities. The measure was moved to decision-making and adopted with amendments and a deferred date. Senate Bill 637, appropriating funds for various University of Hawaiʻi nursing programs, also received support from UH nursing leaders, who said the funding would support the final phase of the West Oʻahu-Manoa collaboration and an online RN-to-BS program. The Hawaiʻi State Center for Nursing said its research showed capacity and demand for these programs. The committee recommended amendments to blank out appropriation amounts for the committee report and deferred the measure, then adopted it. The committee also adopted Senate Bill 741, which establishes an external audit committee within the UH Board of Regents, and deferred or amended several other measures, including a wastewater technology pilot program, a coconut rhinoceros beetle response program, and a climate-resilient development appropriation.

Transcript Highlights:

• based on age, requires residents to rent the housing unit, rent the land on which they live, or both
• home residents, and that state law runs alongside it for residents of adult family homes and assisted
• definition of a resident because they had activities of daily living, but not the non-residents who
• I’m president of the Washington Continuing Care Residents Association.
• It's currently funded for one per 4,000 residents. Is that right?

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 2299, which would create a state senior independent living ombuds program. Staff explained that the bill would direct the Department of Commerce to contract with a nonprofit to provide ombuds services for residents of senior independent living facilities, including complaint handling, data collection, referrals, training, and protections against retaliation and disclosure. The bill also sets qualifications and conflict-of-interest rules for ombuds staff and requires facilities to post notice of the services. The chair noted that, although executive session was on the agenda, the bills would not be voted out that day because amendments were still being worked on. Representative Christine Reeves, the bill’s sponsor, said the measure was intended to address gaps in protections for seniors in independent living settings, which are often treated under multifamily housing law rather than senior housing or long-term care statutes. She described constituent concerns about poor communication, delayed maintenance, safety issues, and a lack of a clear place for residents to seek help. Committee members asked about the bill’s scope, including whether it would apply to 55-plus communities, condominiums, and rented versus owned units, and staff clarified that the bill defines covered facilities as age-restricted apartment buildings, condominiums, or residential neighborhoods where residents rent the unit or land, plus certain portions of CCRCs and assisted living buildings not actively used for assisted living. Testimony was mixed. The Washington Health Care Association and LeadingAge Washington said they support the goal but raised concerns about the bill’s structure, funding, overlap with existing landlord-tenant and long-term care ombuds systems, and the need for a broader stakeholder process and a resident bill of rights first. The Washington State Long-Term Care Ombuds Program supported the concept and said it could potentially absorb the work, but emphasized that current funding is already below recommended staffing levels and that additional resources would likely be needed. Residents and advocates testified in support, saying the bill would provide a neutral outside authority and help address real problems in senior communities. No vote was taken, and the hearing was closed without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• The index minimum stipend for a teacher resident will be set at 65% for residents without a bachelor's
• The bill requires teacher residents to serve a minimum of three years at any public school instead of
• schools within the district that sponsor the resident and makes an offer to the teacher resident.
• It requires continuous supervision when seclusion is used.
• When you look at the training requirements, training was already required.

Bills: HB30 , HB120 , HJR1 , SB210 , SB306

Committee: Senate Senate Education

Keywords: teacher residency, Teacher Residency Act, public schools, teacher preparation, educator pipeline, teacher recruitment, teacher retention, student teachers, apprenticeship, co-teaching, mentor teachers, residency stipend, teacher salary, level one teacher, charter schools, school districts, New Mexico education, teacher workforce, principal stipend, cohort model