Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:15:38.120><c> Steier</c> do their work. Similarly, Rep. Steier do their work.
• </c> work here. work here.
• </c> work on the wild rice bills. work on the wild rice bills.
• here, didn't work something worked here, didn't work there,<00:30:48.040><c> you</c><00:30:48.160><c
• </c> or other people that work down here? or other people that work down here?

Committee: House Ethics

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> work of the office. work of the office.
• </c><01:11:50.159><c> to</c><01:11:50.400><c> be</c> work and I consider our work to be work and I consider
• 05.920><c> worked</c><01:20:06.080><c> as</c><01:20:06.239><c> the</c> know, I've worked I worked as
• This is our work. We do our work and you’re willing to do that work.”
• This is our work. We do House position. This is our work.

Bills: SF856 , HF3168 , HF3528 , HF389

Committee: House State Government Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• There is work already underway and a lot more work to be done.”
• “There is work already underway and a lot more work to be done in this space. Jane.
• ...” “...not dedicating resources to looking at what works, what works.
• and what doesn’t work.
• And then we have quality improvement work, as well as some technology work underway.

Summary: The committee met for its final session before submitting a report to the governor and legislature, with introductions from state officials, legislators, advocates, providers, and facilitators. Staff explained that the meeting would focus on finalizing the committee’s strategic priorities and recommendations for a five-year behavioral health plan centered on prevention, early intervention, and community-based services. Members reviewed the draft overarching priorities, including the need for a statewide behavioral health vision and an executive-level role to coordinate behavioral health across agencies, and discussed how those priorities should reflect people with lived experience, families, and community voice. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on the draft recommendations and how they should be organized and worded. Members raised concerns that the document was too aspirational and not specific enough, and several suggested moving more detailed actions under the broader priorities rather than leaving them in a separate section. There was also discussion about the use of the term “evidence-based,” with tribal representatives and others asking for language that also recognizes practice-based evidence, promising practices, cultural specificity, and flexibility in funding and implementation. Members also discussed clarifying “early intervention,” adding examples such as universal screening, outpatient access, primary care integration, and home visiting, and ensuring the plan reflects accountability and community feedback. Other edits included clarifying credentialing recommendations to distinguish between licensure and payer credentialing, adding mentorship as a workforce retention strategy, and broadening Medicaid-centric language to include carriers and insurers more generally. Staff noted the report would be revised and sent back out for review by May 22, with comments due by May 27, in order to meet the June 1 submission deadline. No public comment was offered, and the meeting ended with thanks to members and facilitators for their work.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we know what will work and what doesn't work, right?
• Because the real work is at the ground level. The real work is with the people.
• And we're now moving into a phase of our work where we're going to be engaged in doing deeper work in
• How did you work at those C-WR... How did you work at those C-Wend?
• In addition, we worked with Empowering Marginalized Asian Communities, known as EMAC, which works with

Summary: The Assembly Human Services Committee held an informational hearing with members of the API Legislative Caucus on California’s Stop the Hate Program and broader efforts to address hate incidents. Opening remarks emphasized the rise in hate during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of culturally and linguistically competent services, and the program’s role in serving not only AAPI communities but also Latino, Black, Jewish, Muslim, LGBTQ+, immigrant, and other impacted communities. Legislators and presenters repeatedly highlighted the value of trusted community-based organizations (CBOs) in reaching people who may not report to law enforcement or seek traditional services. The first panel included the California Commission on Asian and Pacific Islander American Affairs, the Department of Social Services (CDSS), and the Commission on the State of Hate. They described the program’s origins in the state’s equity budget, its funding structure, and its service model: direct victim services, prevention, and intervention. CDSS said 180 organizations statewide have participated, with grantees selected based on experience, capacity, and service to priority populations. The Commission on the State of Hate reported that hate remains widespread and underreported, citing survey data showing about 3.1 million Californians experienced at least one hate act in a year and that many victims need mental health, legal, and other supports beyond police response. Members asked about best practices, youth impacts, administrative costs, and the role of regional leads; CDSS said it would provide more detail on funding distribution and that the final evaluation is still in progress. The second panel featured grantees from Jewish Family Service San Diego, Inland Chinese American Association, Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, and Equality California. They gave examples of how Stop the Hate funding supported culturally specific response teams, counseling, language-access services, self-defense and safety workshops, youth and elder programming, legal navigation, and reporting tools. Several speakers said the program helped build trust, reduce isolation, and connect people to services they otherwise would not use. Legislators pressed the panel on lessons learned, whether the model should be reauthorized, and what would be lost if funding ends. Panelists emphasized that the program’s flexibility, regional convenings, and support for small, trusted organizations were key strengths, while also noting the need for more direct funding to frontline providers and more data on what interventions work best.

Transcript Highlights:

• But it is difficult to do this work. God's work every day.
• work.
• willing to work with us.
• not working.
• They're the people that are working in the state doing the road work.

Committee: House Labor & Industrial Relations

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 680 by Representative Weibel, which would modernize Louisiana’s workforce development system by consolidating strategy and administrative functions at the state level while preserving local input. After adopting two sets of technical amendments and a larger amendment package that added a transition advisory team, consultation requirements with local workforce partners, and other planning and governance changes, the committee heard extensive testimony from the author, the Secretary of Louisiana Works, parish and local workforce representatives, and a witness from Utah describing that state’s consolidation experience. Supporters said the bill would reduce overhead, direct more money to training and services, improve coordination, and better align workforce programs with regional labor needs, while several members pressed for assurances that local boards, parishes, cities, and small businesses would remain involved. The committee ultimately adopted the amendments and reported HB 680 favorably with amendments. The committee then heard House Bill 780 by Representative Furman, a workers’ compensation bill aimed at reducing litigation and speeding dispute resolution. After adopting technical amendments and a separate amendment set allowing authorized agents or attorneys to prepare certain notices, members also adopted a committee amendment deleting a statutory definition of “arbitrary and capricious” after concerns were raised that the language could create confusion or conflict with existing jurisprudence. The author and supporting attorneys argued the bill would restore an expedited preliminary determination process, create a single standard for attorney fees, and reduce costs for employers by limiting unnecessary litigation and delays. They said the changes would not affect an injured worker’s choice of physician or existing penalty provisions, and that the bill mainly addressed notice and dispute procedures. Opponents, including attorneys representing injured workers, argued the bill would make it harder for workers to recover penalties and attorney’s fees when benefits are delayed or denied, and said the new standard could favor insurers that are understaffed or slow to process claims. They also criticized the shift from reasonableness to a more restrictive standard and raised concerns about delayed payments and the lack of transparency around defense costs. After hearing testimony from both sides, the committee continued discussion of the bill with these issues still under consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that work? Okay.
• recommendations working?
• Here's our work group. We worked very closely with our work group members.
• staffing to work that is embedded within NIMS and works with NIMS and works with NIMS. ...progress because
• they have additional staffing to work that is embedded within NIMS and works with NIMS and works with

Committees: Joint Transportation , Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Summary: The committee met in the Quad Cities area and first heard a joint presentation from public works directors from Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland on regional transportation priorities, challenges, and project delivery. The cities said their priorities align with JTC goals such as safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They highlighted regional coordination through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments and Good Roads, use of multiple funding sources including TIB, REIT, impact fees, transportation benefit districts, and tax increment financing, and a shared approach to Vision Zero, complete streets, ADA access, and active transportation planning. They also described major projects such as Richland’s downtown connectivity and SR 240/Aaron Drive improvements, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard corridor and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street, Broadmoor interchange, and north-south bridge concepts, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain project. The directors also described common obstacles: rising construction costs, project phasing, permitting and right-of-way delays, utility coordination, pavement preservation needs, and workforce shortages. West Richland emphasized that its SR 224 project stayed on schedule by setting clear roles, maintaining frequent communication, resolving right-of-way issues early, and reducing contractor risk through detailed plans and utility relocation. Committee members asked about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens. The cities said sidewalk gaps are most common in older infill or unincorporated areas, state right-of-way processes can be slow, apprenticeship requirements are generally built into funded projects but are hard for smaller contractors to meet, and there is no easy fix for low-bid contractors with poor performance histories. After the local presentations, staff introduced a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development policy, and Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark presented findings from work covering 33 cities in the Puget Sound, Spokane, and Vancouver regions near rail and bus rapid transit stations. He said Washington faces a severe housing affordability problem, with rising rents and home prices, and that TOD can help connect housing and transit but must be tailored to different market conditions. The study found that higher-cost cities near transit have seen more development but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and still face worsening affordability. Freemark identified barriers including high debt and construction costs, limited subsidy resources, high land costs, regulatory and parking requirements, and impact fees, and he said HB 1491 and related legislation may address some zoning and parking constraints. He recommended more targeted state support for neighborhood infrastructure around stations and policies that reflect the different conditions of high- and low-demand communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your good work as well. Thank you for your good work as well, Co-Chair Vang.
• Good work getting the committee.
• So whatever we do, you all do two times the work or three times more work.
• They are almost always here, working hard to do the people's work. here working hard to do the people's
• work, so we cannot and would not do without your good work.

Bills: HF2563

Committee: House Legacy Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• The other thing that's working well in terms of services is work. So I'm very happy with that.
• We work with law enforcement. We work, excuse me, with...
• We work with law enforcement.
• work.
• But we appreciate the work that you do, the difficult work that you do.

Summary: The committee held a panel discussion on Florida’s domestic violence system, focusing on the roles of the state, the federally designated coalition, direct-service providers, and law enforcement. Members reviewed the history of the system after the dissolution of the former coalition in 2020, the creation of the Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence, DCF’s Office of Domestic Violence, and the current contract structure involving Women in Distress and its subcontractors for hotline and legal services. Panelists also discussed the 2024 lethality assessment law, the workgroup’s conclusion that the evidence-based Maryland tool could not be used because of copyright and cost issues, and the state’s current use of statutory questions instead. DCF and FDLE described the statewide certification and funding framework, including more than $60 million in domestic violence funding for fiscal year 2025-26 and the requirement that law enforcement complete lethality-assessment training by October 1, 2026. Testimony highlighted both collaboration and conflict. Florida Partnership to End Domestic Violence and Women in Distress described overlapping training and technical-assistance roles, but disagreed sharply about the quality of their relationship with DCF and whether the current structure is duplicative. DCF said it maintains communication with both the coalition and the centers and emphasized that the coalition is federally required, while the coalition argued that the department has obstructed its work. Women in Distress and Hope Villages stressed direct services, prevention, and the need for more housing, staffing, and funding, especially in rural areas. They also described programs in schools, hospitals, and child welfare settings, and noted that children exposed to domestic violence often need specialized services. Members asked about funding flows, certification, rural coverage, the number of centers, and the lethality assessment rollout. DCF said the 41 certified centers serve all 67 counties and that no new applications have been received in about 15 years. FDLE reported that 46 of roughly 400 law enforcement agencies had completed the lethality-assessment training and attestation, with the statutory deadline still ahead. Panelists said domestic violence appears to be increasing, citing higher hotline demand, shelter occupancy, and local case numbers, while also noting that statewide crime data remains outdated. The discussion ended with calls for better coordination, clearer implementation of statutes, more funding, and possible legislative fixes to improve data collection, training, and service delivery.

Transcript Highlights:

• But we know what will work and what doesn't work, right?
• Because the real work is at the ground level. The real work is with the people.
• You know, I come from working on hate crimes as early as the 1990s when... ...working on hate crimes
• as early as the 1990s, when there was more of a focus on working with law enforcement and working on
• How did you work at those C-WROW-WR? How did you work at those C-Wend?

Committee: House Human Services

Transcript Highlights:

• And it is working.
• And it is working.
• I live and work in Boston.
• That work is analogous in some ways to farm work. Farm work is highly skilled.
• we recognize that it needs to be a system that works for them and works for us.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development

Summary: The Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development held a hybrid public hearing with testimony on a wide range of labor, workforce, unemployment insurance, apprenticeship, disability services, farm labor, hospital staffing, and workplace harassment bills. Chairs Jake Oliveira and Paul McMurtry outlined hearing procedures, limited testimony to two minutes, and noted written testimony would be accepted after the hearing. Committee members and staff were introduced throughout the session as witnesses arrived in person or remotely. A major portion of the hearing focused on unemployment insurance legislation. Greater Boston Legal Services, the AFL-CIO, and Rep. Joan Meschino supported bills to adjust UI eligibility for workers with fluctuating schedules and to streamline waivers and write-offs for non-fault overpayments, arguing the current system unfairly denies benefits or burdens workers who were not at fault. They also backed bills calling for more oversight and resources for the Division of Unemployment Assistance, citing persistent delays in benefit payments. NFIB opposed the UI changes, warning that the trust fund is headed toward insolvency and arguing the bills would worsen the system’s finances. Rep. Meschino and committee members emphasized that the proposals were meant to protect good-faith claimants and did not apply to fraud. Another large set of bills addressed wages, workforce development, and working conditions. Testimony supported raising and modernizing direct care wages to address severe staffing shortages in human services and disability services, with advocates from the Massachusetts Developmental Disability Council, The Arc of Massachusetts, parents of adults with disabilities, and a direct care worker describing how low pay and turnover harm people needing support. The committee also heard support for apprenticeship-related bills from the AFL-CIO and the Carpenters, while Associated Builders and Contractors opposed mandatory apprenticeship ratios and urged changes to align them with licensing laws. Farm worker advocates supported a bill to raise farm labor standards, including minimum wage, paid breaks, and paid time off, while the Farm Bureau opposed parts of it beyond the minimum wage increase. The hearing also featured testimony on workplace harassment training, overtime protections, hospital mandatory overtime, suicide prevention signage on construction sites, and a proposal to update the Massachusetts Medical Society’s mission language from “citizens” to “people.” Labor groups, educators, and compliance trainers strongly supported mandatory annual sexual harassment training, saying it would improve workplace culture and reduce harm. SEIU 1199 supported extending the hospital nurse mandatory overtime ban to the broader hospital workforce. Witnesses on the suicide prevention bill described personal losses in construction and recovery work and urged posting 988 information on job sites. The committee took no votes during the hearing; witnesses repeatedly asked for favorable reports, and members asked follow-up questions on UI calculations, apprenticeship ratios, small-business impacts, and emergency exceptions for hospital staffing.

Transcript Highlights:

• work.
• So we work with the FTA on that transit model. So we work with the FTA on that transit modeling.
• Upcoming work items.
• We are building upon previous work that's been done: the Level 1 work completed during the CRC.
• You'll see actual construction work beginning and working over the next four to six months.

Committee: Joint Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• the hard work of our team.
• So the legislative finance committee wants to know how is, how is this working? Is it working?
• So we're excited to be able to work with those communities and work with those counties to provide them
• It's working, things that aren't working, and really be able to pivot at the local level.
• You know, it's a lot to really look at and to work with it. We'll have to work with that.

Bills: HB1

Committee: Senate Senate Finance

Keywords: feed bill, legislative appropriations, legislative branch, New Mexico Legislature, general fund, legislative council service, legislative finance committee, legislative education study committee, house chief clerk, senate chief clerk, per diem, mileage, session expenses, interim committees, district staff, capitol complex, capital outlay data system, legislative processing system, redistricting, census redistricting

Transcript Highlights:

• We work through by statute, we work through a list of target industries.
• Most of the time when we do that work, we're actually working with small companies.
• So that work really does work.
• It works.
• So thank you for the work.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:05:01.919><c> as</c><00:05:02.200><c> a</c> I work at Division of Indian Work as a I work at
• Um, even today in the work that I do, a lot of students that I work with and families that I work with
• Um, even today in the work that I do, a lot of students that I work with and families that I work with
• </c> at work every day. at work every day.
• I will just say we work at both work on.

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• That should work.
• Domestic work is the work that makes all other work possible.
• We work with micro-entrepreneurs, small business owners, and folks that work in the informal economy.
• part of the informal work economy.
• So we're doing that work.

Summary: The Select Committee on Latina Inequities met at Los Angeles Mission College in Sylmar, hosted by Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez and joined by Assemblymember Mia Bonta. Rodriguez opened by framing the committee’s work around the economic status of Latinas and the effects of federal policies on the economy and social safety net, while the college president welcomed the committee and described campus services for undocumented and housing-insecure students. Rodriguez also emphasized the local impact of immigration enforcement in the San Fernando Valley and said the hearing would focus on Latinas’ economic conditions, immigration enforcement impacts on the workforce and safety, and H.R. 1’s effects on the safety net. The first panel featured HOPE’s Maria Morales and Dr. Elsa Macias, who presented findings from HOPE’s National Economic Status of Latinas report. They said Latinas are a major and growing part of California’s population and workforce, but face persistent inequities, including a large wage gap, higher unemployment, high uninsured rates, student debt, and affordability pressures around child care, housing, and education. They also discussed entrepreneurship, noting both the growth of Latina-owned businesses and barriers such as limited access to capital, technical assistance, and retirement and health coverage. In response to committee questions, they said higher education can still offer a strong return on investment, but only if students can complete degrees without being overwhelmed by debt and care costs; they also pointed to policy solutions such as SB 642, mentorship, financial literacy, CalSavers access, and support for community development financial institutions. The second panel focused on immigration enforcement and Latina safety in the workforce. Luis Nolasco of the ACLU described arrests tied to apparent ethnicity and Spanish-speaking, the chilling effect on families, and the loss of wages, school attendance, and mobility. Dr. Amada Armenta said immigration enforcement harms California’s economy, public health, and mixed-status families, and noted that undocumented workers are concentrated in agriculture, construction, and child care. SEIU’s Jen Baca Beltran said raids and school-based enforcement traumatize children and families and highlighted the need for Know Your Rights trainings. Megan Ortiz of IDEPSCA described repeated Border Patrol raids on day labor centers, injuries to staff, and the need to protect worker centers, domestic workers, and street vendors. Inclusive Action’s Shannon Camacho said raids have forced many informal workers to stop working, prompted emergency cash assistance and rent relief efforts, and strengthened advocacy for vendor protections and CDFI support. CHIRLA’s Jeanette Zanipatine said the rapid response network has expanded, documented widespread arrests and detention conditions, and is providing direct support and legal referrals; committee members asked about detention, maternal health, and what the state can do, and panelists urged stronger oversight, more legal representation, and protections for pregnant and detained people.

Transcript Highlights:

• work.
• work in this industry.
• We had to work.
• And many of you know that we've worked, I've worked, as my team's worked really hard to make sure we
• We work very hard, and the staff has worked hard around the clock.

Summary: The California State Assembly Select Committee on Child Care Costs held its second hearing focused first on disaster response, especially wildfires and flooding, and how they affect child care infrastructure. State agencies described their disaster preparedness and response work, including evacuation notifications, shelter coordination, emergency guidance, waivers, and support services. The Department of Education said wildfires have displaced tens of thousands of families and impacted thousands of preschool families, and recommended statutory changes to help rebuild programs, require early childhood programs to be included in local recovery plans, expand mental health supports, and review disaster, tax, and insurance policy gaps. Child care advocates and providers described major losses from the L.A. fires and San Diego flooding, including destroyed homes and businesses, lack of insurance, delayed permits, lost income, and the need for emergency grants, relocation help, and better disaster planning for child care programs. Several providers gave personal testimony about rebuilding after fires and floods, including one family child care provider from Pasadena/Altadena whose home and business were destroyed and who is still trying to reopen while paying rent, a mortgage, and permit costs. Another provider described flood damage, health impacts on children, and thousands of dollars in losses. Committee members emphasized that child care is often overlooked in disaster recovery and asked state officials what is being done to integrate child care into emergency planning and to improve coordination among state and local agencies. Officials said the statewide child care disaster plan exists and has been updated over time, but acknowledged more work is needed and that the hearing itself should inform future improvements. The second panel addressed immigration enforcement and its impact on the child care system. Advocates from the Children's Partnership, Every Child California, and CHIRLA said immigration raids and enforcement activity are causing families to keep children home, reducing attendance and enrollment, increasing fear and trauma, and destabilizing providers and the broader early learning workforce. They argued that child care settings are trusted spaces and that enforcement undermines continuity of care, child development, and program viability. They urged stronger privacy and safety protections, statewide training and technical assistance, trauma-informed guidance, legal support for families, transportation and subsidy protections, and emergency funding for providers. Speakers also highlighted recently enacted laws AB 49 and AB 495, but stressed that implementation will require funding and clear guidance. Committee members agreed that funding and implementation are critical and heard public testimony from providers describing fear, family separation, and the need to keep child care safe and stable for immigrant families.

Transcript Highlights:

• We know how to work in partnership. And that work will continue.
• It's not sexy work, but it's critical work.
• And so that work will also continue in tandem with the work of this reorganization.
• How are you envisioning aligning that work with the work of the Treasurer's Office, or is there some
• And so we are already working. Often the same unit. And so we are already working on that.

Summary: The joint hearing focused on Governor Newsom’s 2025 reorganization plan to split the Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency into two new agencies: a Business and Consumer Services Agency and a California Housing and Homelessness Agency. Secretary Tamika Moss and department leaders from Consumer Affairs, Cannabis Control, DFPI, and Alcoholic Beverage Control said the business-side reorganization would sharpen consumer protection and regulatory oversight without increasing licensee fees or office-space needs. Members generally supported the concept, but several raised concerns about the timing relative to the budget process, the May Revision, and whether the new structure would add costs or disrupt legal and regulatory work. Public commenters from industry groups largely supported the business-side proposal. The second half of the hearing examined the proposed Housing and Homelessness Agency and a new Housing Development and Finance Committee intended to streamline affordable housing funding. Moss, HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez, and CalHFA’s Rebecca Franklin argued the reorganization would reduce fragmentation, speed approvals, improve compliance and asset management, and better coordinate housing, homelessness, and civil rights functions. They said CalHFA’s statutory and financial independence would remain intact, that the proposal would not affect existing homelessness programs administered by HCD, and that the plan would be phased in over several years, with the new agencies and committee expected to become operational by July 2026. Members pressed on whether the plan would truly create a one-stop shop, how it would interact with tax credits and bonds outside the Governor’s control, whether it would include a single application and unified inspections, and how it would address Los Angeles homelessness oversight and federal uncertainties such as tariffs and Section 8 changes. Developer witnesses strongly backed the housing proposal, describing the current system as slow, opaque, and costly. Margaret Miller of the John Stewart Company and Jeffrey Morgan of CHISPA gave examples of projects delayed or lost because multiple funding sources required separate applications, awards, and closings; both said a cabinet-level housing secretary and a consolidated funding process could save time and money and produce more units. Public advocates including Housing California, the California Housing Partnership, and the California Housing Consortium supported the concept but stressed that success would depend on implementation, adequate funding, transparency, and broader coordination with tax credit and bond programs. No formal votes were taken; the hearing was informational, and the committees heard testimony and questions on the proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're working with the VA and SAMHSA in order to do that work.
• That work is just underway.
• </c> today we're going to go over the work today we're going to go over the work that<00:01:44.560><c
• </c><00:04:38.080><c> on</c> Challenge and we're really working on Challenge and we're really working
• work we're working with collaborative work we're working with our<00:15:40.279><c> Suicide</c><00:15:

Committee: Senate Agriculture, Veterans, Broadband, and Rural Development - Subcommittee on Veterans

Transcript Highlights:

• So, thank you for that work.
• We're also working on...
• I believe we can make it work.
• Working with the SWCD down on the Dog Head and others. We need more of that work to happen.
• Again, that seems to be the main work, not the only work, but a lot of the work that DOT has done in

Committee: House House Rural Development, Land Grants And Cultural Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• We do work with them. I figured you all. We do work with them.
• </c><00:17:54.799><c> work</c> to do road work.
• Can't do work road work to do road work.
• </c> to go to work at 6:00 the next morning. to go to work at 6:00 the next morning.
• That we have worked, you know, folks out there that we have worked with before.

Committee: Senate Health and Human Services

Summary: The committee first heard SR 12/SCR 16, which asks the Department of Health to convene a task force to identify minimum professional standards for community health worker training programs. The Department of Health supported the measure and said it could take on the work with current resources. Testimony from Papa Ola Lokahi, the Hawaii Public Health Institute, the Hawaii Community Health Worker Association, and community health workers strongly supported the resolution but urged broader task force representation, including community health workers themselves, Papa Ola Lokahi, the Hawaii Primary Care Association, the Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander Community Health Worker Alliance, and community-based rural nonprofit organizations. Several testifiers also asked that community health workers make up at least half of the task force. The department indicated it had no objection to adding the requested groups, and members discussed those proposed amendments. The committee then took up SR 141/SCR 172, which requests a Department of Health working group on demolition waste reduction. Energy Justice Network and other supporters urged amendments, including use of the internationally recognized zero-waste definition and hierarchy. The committee also heard SR 165/SCR 205, which would direct the Department of Health to adopt rules setting maximum decibel levels for concerts or events at private venues in primarily residential areas. The department said it was already working on noise issues and wanted a community noise working group to address nuisances beyond current statutory categories, but members questioned the lack of specific standards, the absence of a defined working group membership, and whether the proposal would lead to broader restrictions on events. Testimony and discussion focused on concerns about noise impacts, enforcement, and the balance between community complaints and long-standing local events. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion provided. The hearing then moved on to SR 174/SCR 194, which would ask the Department of Health to reduce the use of disposable surgical equipment and adopt sustainable practices, but discussion of that measure was not included in the transcript excerpt.