Transcript Highlights:

• The first finding: overall vacancy rates vary by provider.
• The overall vacancy rate declined from 19% in 2024 to 15% in 2025.
• The staff vacancy rate decreased in every program.
• , compares unfavorably to the Mass job openings rate.
• And the clinicians still have a pretty high vacancy rate, was it 19%?

Summary: The Workforce Support Subcommittee of the Status of Persons with Disabilities met, approved prior minutes, and heard a presentation from the Association of Developmental Disabilities Providers (ADDP) on its 2025 workforce metrics survey. ADDP described its membership and the survey’s scope, which covers community-based services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, autism, and brain injuries. The survey had strong participation, with 102 of 132 members responding, and this year included new questions on rising health insurance costs. ADDP reported that workforce conditions have improved for a third consecutive year, with the overall vacancy rate falling from 19% in 2024 to 15% in 2025, and vacancy declines across several program areas. However, vacancies remain high in key roles such as licensed practical nurses and clinicians, nearly 4,000 positions remain unfilled, and about 1,800 people are still waiting for day services. Providers also reported major health insurance premium increases, which they said make it harder to offer competitive wages and benefits and affect recruitment and retention. Committee members discussed the impact of federal immigration policy, workforce shortages, and the need to maintain recent gains in staffing. The subcommittee then elected Rachel Caprillion and Leo Sarkisian as co-chairs by vote. Members discussed possible topics and guests for the next meeting, including training, turnover, waiting lists, direct support professional pipelines, apprenticeships, and possible speakers from state agencies, advocacy organizations, other states, and workforce programs such as JVS. The meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• of special education students given the rates of these various factors in the school district.
• Shown on the horizontal axis, with the actual identification rate shown on the vertical axis.
• We applied a binary variable to each school, With the rate of special education students, we applied
• We then looked at whether the difference between rates in other states and Washington's rate were statistically
• Similar to what we showed in the previous slides, Washington's rates were statistically similar to 18

Committee: Joint JLARC I-900 Subcommittee for SAO Performance Audits

Summary: The JLARC I-900 Subcommittee heard a State Auditor’s Office performance audit on special education services, focused on comparing student needs, district identification practices, and funding. Auditors said Washington does not appear to under-identify any particular population for special education, though districts face ongoing challenges with identification, documentation, staffing shortages, and inconsistent referral tracking. They explained that their analysis used statistical models because the true prevalence of disabilities is unknown, and found Washington districts generally clustered near the national average, with little evidence that any demographic group was systematically under-identified. The audit also found that special education funding has historically been insufficient, with districts collectively covering about $500 million in costs not paid by state or federal sources, and that districts spent about 26% more per student than they received in funding. Auditors noted recent legislative changes that removed the special education enrollment cap and changed the safety net process, but said it was too soon to assess their effects. Their recommendations to OSPI included clarifying what counts as an official special education referral, requiring districts to report referral data even when no evaluation follows, and ensuring the new statewide data system is developed with district input, training, and possibly a mandate for uniform use. OSPI staff said they concurred with the report and appreciated the work of the auditor’s office and JLARC. During member questions, Representative Paulette raised concerns that the audit did not directly examine prevalence of specific disabilities, such as autism and dyslexia, in vulnerable populations or compare Washington’s identification practices to medical and peer-reviewed prevalence data. Auditors responded that medical prevalence is not known in a systematic way, that educational eligibility differs from medical diagnosis, and that the report’s conclusions should not be read as proving no populations are under- or over-identified. No public testimony was offered, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• care rate.
• the contract rates.
• property rate increases. facility property rate increases.
• It limits rate 36 was unchanged.
• rate study from a rates based on the um rate study from a couple<01:02:29.760><c> of</c><01:02:29.920

Transcript Highlights:

• So we do now know that our 2025 payment error rate is today, that rate has been final.
• So what accounts for this wide variability in the error rate when you're looking at monthly error rate
• So what accounts for this wide variability in the air rate when you're looking at monthly air rate?
• Or what are they doing to limit that error rate?
• And so when we look at the error rate, a lot of people perceive error rate as fraud and whatnot.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the March 18 minutes, and then received a series of updates on health-related projects and Department of Health and Human Services budget matters. Representatives from CHI St. Alexius in Bismarck and Williston, and Altru in Grand Forks, reported progress on behavioral health expansion projects, including demolition and construction milestones, updated timelines, funding status, staffing plans, and barriers such as an unbudgeted air handler replacement in Williston. Members asked about original completion dates, use of telehealth, recruitment of psychiatrists and other staff, and whether the new beds might reduce the need for patients to travel to Jamestown State Hospital. The projects were described as on track overall, with completion expected in 2027 for the larger builds and earlier openings for some phases in Williston. The committee then heard from HHS leadership on technical line-item transfers and the Salaries and Wages Block Grant. Donna Ockland explained that recent transfers were administrative corrections to place spending in the proper budget lines and did not involve new spending, and she reviewed FTE counts and vacancies across the department. Questions focused on behavioral health staffing changes and the use of consultants in the Rural Health Transformation Program. Pat Rainer outlined the rural health program’s first-year grants and priorities, including workforce retention, rural rotations and housing, community wellness initiatives, behavioral health promotion, safety net services, hospital equipment, suicide prevention training, technology, and EMS support. He said North Dakota’s plan was drawing positive national attention, but the department still needed to obligate roughly $199 million by September and was working with CMS on timing and compliance. The committee also received an update on certified community behavioral health clinics from Elena Zeller. She said North Dakota had been accepted as a demonstration state, with certification efforts underway in Williston, North Central, Fargo, and Dickinson. Members asked about care coordination, service growth, staffing, and whether certification would expand to all clinics; the department said it was still collecting baseline data and evaluating impacts before making future recommendations. Finally, Rebecca Askins reviewed SNAP payment error rates, explaining that the 2025 rate was finalized at 9.89 percent and that the department is working on training, system changes, and quality assurance steps to get below 6 percent. Members pressed on the causes of monthly variability, the performance of the SPACES system, and accountability for ongoing errors, and the department said it expects improvement over the next 6 to 12 months.

Transcript Highlights:

• , the proposed tax rate ceiling.
• change in the tax rate ceiling.
• We have our tax rate hearing at our last ...September right before our tax rate hearing.
• So that rate would be our rate most likely with the 2027.
• So that rate would be our rate most likely with the 2027.

Committee: House Special Committee on Property Tax Reform

Summary: The committee met in executive session and first took up House Bill 2709, including a substitute that combined language from HB 2709 and HB 2671. Members debated an amendment that would have separated the Hancock-by-subclass portion from a personal property tax provision; supporters said it would make the bill cleaner and preserve a separate property tax issue already addressed elsewhere, while opponents argued it would create inconsistency. The amendment failed, the substitute was adopted, and the House Committee Substitute for HB 2709 and HB 2671 was voted do pass by a roll call of 14 yes and 5 no. The committee then passed HB 1759 do pass by a vote of 12 yes and 7 no, with one member noting that additional tweaks were expected on the floor. Next, the committee considered HB 2925, where Representative Fowler offered Amendment 04H to remove the requirement that property tax elections be held in November and replace it with an affirmative-consent standard requiring both a majority of votes cast and at least 25% of registered voters voting yes. Supporters said the change would avoid forcing local tax elections into a narrow election window and would require broader voter buy-in for long-term tax obligations; opponents argued it would be a major change that should receive more public review and could distort local election participation. The amendment failed 5 yes to 14 no, and HB 2925 was then voted do pass 11 yes to 8 no. In public testimony, Representative Van Schoiack presented HB 2415, which would require assessors to use a cost approach rather than a market approach for valuing buildings, while still valuing land through the market approach. He said the bill was intended to address over-assessment in larger counties and under-assessment in rural counties, and to make valuations more objective. Testimony was mixed: a public advocate supported the idea as a way to address rising taxes and tax sales, while county assessors and other witnesses said assessors already use multiple approaches, that cost approach works best for new or rural properties but can be subjective for older buildings, and that forcing one method statewide could create inaccuracies and large valuation swings. No action was taken on HB 2415 during the hearing. The committee also heard HJR 148 and HJR 111, presented by Representatives Coleman and Taylor, to bring Kansas City Public Schools under Hancock limits like other districts. Sponsors said KCPS is the only district still operating under a special court-imposed arrangement from desegregation-era orders and that the proposal would keep the district at its current levy while requiring voter approval for future increases. KCPS Superintendent Jennifer Collier opposed the measure as written, saying the district does want to come under Hancock but needs to do so on its own timeline and with a planned April 2027 levy proposal that would maintain the current rate; she said the district is now fiscally stronger and has community support, including passage of an 85% bond issue. Committee members questioned the legal basis, the effect on KCPS and charter schools, and whether the proposal would interfere with the district’s planned ballot strategy.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, just a rate that was close to 4%.
• </c> rate is at 9%. rate is at 9%.
• Moving forward in 2027, 9% error rate.
• </c><00:04:28.240><c> under</c> If we do not get our error rate under If we do not get our error rate
• </c><00:08:35.919><c> this</c> we can bring that air rate down. this we can bring that air rate down.

Summary: Representative Nolan West and Representative Pam Oldenorf introduced and defended a bill aimed at tightening Minnesota SNAP eligibility rules. They said the measure would move the net income test to the front of the application process, add asset testing similar to other state programs, and exclude vehicles over $100,000. They argued these changes would reduce overpayments, improve “good governance,” and help the state avoid future financial penalties tied to SNAP error rates. Oldenorf said Minnesota’s SNAP error rate has risen from about 4% in 2013 to about 9% now, and warned that if it stays above 6% the state could owe about $86 million in 2027. She cited a GAO report saying broad-based categorical eligibility is a major driver of payment errors, and pointed to examples she described as fraud or improper enrollment, including a millionaire receiving benefits and a recent Minneapolis SNAP fraud conviction. West and Oldenorf said the bill would not significantly increase county workloads, because counties already do similar eligibility and asset checks in other programs. In response to questions, the sponsors said they had not yet formally consulted many stakeholders because the bill had just been drafted, but they expected bipartisan support and said they had reached out to counties for input. They also said counties would retain some administrative costs, but the bill should not add major new burdens. The discussion then shifted to a separate topic when West raised concerns about access to Hennepin County voter rolls and alleged irregularities in voter data; he said he had obtained some county records and believed the Secretary of State was improperly limiting access, though no bill action or vote was taken on that issue in this transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• Actually, the persistence rates for first-year students has gone up. ...persistence rates for first-year
• and persistence rates have increased.
• and our six-year graduation rates, particularly... ...that we ensure that our four-year graduation rates
• Now, I continue to see that our four-year graduation rates and our six-year graduation rates for Black
• and a 76.2% six-year graduation rate...

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee on Education held its first 2026 hearing on higher education, focusing on UC and CSU system updates, student housing, enrollment, and core operations. In opening remarks, the chair noted recent state fiscal stress, the prior rejection of proposed UC/CSU cuts, and the Governor’s proposed 5% ongoing compact increases. UC President James B. Milliken and CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia described the systems’ public value, research and workforce roles, and the impact of federal actions on grants, financial aid, and campus operations. Both also emphasized Title IX and civil rights efforts; CSU said it had implemented nearly all state auditor recommendations and was on track to finish the remaining one, while UC highlighted its systemwide civil rights and Title IX offices. Both leaders said federal investigations, grant cancellations, and litigation demands were consuming staff time and money, with UC reporting more than 200 grants lost or affected and CSU citing more than $161 million in lost grants and more than 1,600 grants affected overall. The committee then heard on student housing. Finance and LAO staff said the Governor’s budget made no major new housing proposal but continued support for the Higher Education Student Housing Grant Program. CSU reported 12 supported projects that will add about 5,047 beds, most below market rate, with four already open and seven more expected this year; it also said it has about 68,000 beds systemwide, a 92% occupancy rate, and ongoing emergency housing support. UC said the program has supported seven UC projects and two joint community college projects, adding more than 7,000 beds total, but nearly 10,000 UC students were on housing waitlists at the start of fall 2025. UC asked for additional state support, including possible bond funding and a statutory change to allow UC participation in public-private partnership housing projects. Members discussed rapid rehousing, student homelessness, faculty and staff housing, and community college housing partnerships, with both systems describing existing emergency beds and support services. On enrollment, LAO recommended maintaining UC’s 2026-27 resident undergraduate target, funding enrollment growth separately from base increases, pausing the nonresident reduction plan, and holding UC flat in 2027-28. For CSU, LAO recommended revising the 2026-27 target downward to reflect current projections, funding growth separately, and holding 2027-28 flat. CSU said it had rebounded from COVID declines, now exceeds its funded target by about 3,000 FTE, and is shifting about $89 million and 10,000 FTE spots from lower-demand campuses to higher-demand ones while developing turnaround plans for seven campuses with sustained enrollment declines, including Sonoma State. CSU also described direct admissions, transfer success pathways, and new degree programs aimed at workforce needs. UC said it had surpassed its compact enrollment goals, planned to add 2,721 California undergraduates in 2026-27, and was seeking $5.5 million for health professional programs. Members raised concerns about underprepared freshmen, K-12 alignment, nonresident caps at UC San Diego, deferred maintenance, ROTC access, and the need for stronger turnaround plans and teacher preparation pipelines. The final item on core operations addressed the Governor’s proposal to defer 3% base funding again, moving the one-time deferral to 2027-28 and allowing short-term zero-interest loans to cover it.

Transcript Highlights:

• And if the insurers chose to raise their rates, they would go up by 0.2%, a dollar a month.
• receives the highest possible ratings from charity evaluators.
• We assume that these mid-tier providers would be paid a low rate.
• increase, but rather improve transparency in the rate-setting process.
• Yet the current rates do not account for these updated requirements.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Health Care Financing

Summary: The Joint Committee on Health Care Financing held a public hearing on a range of health care financing bills focused largely on autism services and kidney disease coverage. Committee chairs John Lawn and Cindy Friedman outlined hearing procedures and noted that written testimony would continue to be accepted until each bill is acted upon. They said the day’s bills addressed affordability and access to behavioral health services, provider reimbursement, Medicare coverage for vulnerable patients, and MassHealth eligibility asset exemptions. A major portion of the hearing concerned House Bill 4623, which would recognize board-certified assistant behavior analysts (BCABAs) in the MassHealth reimbursement framework to help address long wait lists for autism spectrum disorder services. Representative Lisa Field and several providers testified that Massachusetts families face long delays for ABA services and that adding BCABAs would expand workforce capacity, reduce costs, and improve access. Wakely actuary Annie Tasman Ewing said a three-tier model could reduce MassHealth costs by up to 6% annually, while Dr. Sandra Beaton and others described severe wait lists and said the bill would allow more families to be served sooner. The committee also heard extensive testimony on House Bill 4425 and Senate Bill 2737, which would allow people under 65 with end-stage renal disease to purchase Medigap coverage. Representative Stanley, Senator Gomez, and advocates from the American Kidney Fund and Dialysis Patient Citizens argued that current law unfairly excludes these patients, leaves them with high out-of-pocket costs, and can delay transplant eligibility because many centers require secondary insurance. Testifiers said the change would help about 846 residents, could cost insurers only a small premium increase, and might reduce Medicaid spending by avoiding asset spend-downs. Committee members asked questions about the existing statutory carve-out and the practical effects on transplant access. The hearing also included testimony on House Bill 4353 and Senate Bill 2587, which would require regular Medicaid rate reviews for ABA services. Providers and clinicians said current MassHealth rates no longer reflect the cost of delivering care, especially with new 2026 policy requirements, workforce shortages, and accreditation obligations. They emphasized that the bills would not mandate a rate increase but would create a data-driven, transparent review process. At the end of the hearing, the chairs thanked participants, invited additional written testimony, and the committee voted unanimously to adjourn the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• in last session's bonding bill, and had that passed, the city of Hastings would not see the water rate
• in last session's bonding bill, and had that passed, the city of Hastings would not see the water rate
• in last session's bonding bill, and had that passed, the city of Hastings would not see the water rate
• Do you think this eliminates a rate entirely, or just brings it down?
• to the city, or is this something that's just coming through rate hikes?

Transcript Highlights:

• So we have a cycle of general rate cases. We review... So we have a cycle of general rate cases.
• case amounts go into rates.
• but also rate... ...of these memorandum accounts that have resulted in rate increases but also rate decreases
• to keep rates down.
• of return, authorized rate of return.

Summary: The hearing was an informational budget session on energy agency proposals, with no votes taken. Early discussion focused on Proposition 4 climate bond implementation, including funding for demand-side grid support, offshore wind development, and transmission financing. The Department of Finance said the budget includes allocations for demand-side grid support and offshore wind, but not yet for the $325 million transmission financing piece pending a required study. The Legislative Analyst’s Office urged the Legislature to consider whether to wait on offshore wind funding, whether to keep shifting funds into demand-side grid support, and how to direct future transmission financing. Members also raised concerns about local technical assistance for offshore wind, Salton Sea priorities, and the need for more information before final decisions. The California Energy Commission and CPUC then reviewed the broader energy package. The CEC highlighted the demand-side grid support program’s growth, distributed energy backup assets, long-duration storage, hydrogen grants, and the SIRP clean energy reliability program. CPUC testimony emphasized affordability, wildfire mitigation costs, rooftop solar cost shifts, and efforts to reduce rates while maintaining reliability and clean energy goals. Members questioned CPUC staffing, delays in proceedings, coordination with the CEC and CAISO, and the impact of rate increases on customers. The agencies also discussed the AB 3264 transmission financing study, with CPUC saying work on the study had already begun and was on track for the July 1 deadline. Several trailer bill and implementation items were also discussed. The committee reviewed a proposal to extend the Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program surcharge, with members split over whether it should be handled in budget trailer bill language or policy legislation; the administration said the surcharge supports a critical program serving about three-quarters of a million Californians. The committee also heard a CPUC data-sharing proposal to allow nondisclosure agreements for transmission and reliability data, which members generally supported as a technical fix. DWR explained a proposal to clarify language for the Electricity Supply Strategic Reliability Reserve so it can potentially sell three gas-fired units it owns, and the CEC presented a federal transmission grant proposal tied to grid-enhancing technologies and ratepayer cost recovery. Finally, the committee discussed California Lifeline and possible broadband pilot reforms in light of uncertainty around federal Universal Service Fund support, with CPUC saying it is exploring a statewide standalone broadband option for eligible customers.

Transcript Highlights:

• of plus or minus 2% compared to the current discount rate.
• For reference, CalPERS' current discount rate is 6.8%.
• We use that rate to discount future benefit payments.
• establishes the contribution rates and the liabilities.
• You obviously want your contribution rates to rely on audits.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Opening remarks emphasized CalPERS’ role in providing retirement security for about two million members and the importance of pension funding to the state budget, especially amid economic uncertainty, market volatility, federal policy changes, and concerns about future fiscal pressure. Scott Tarando, CalPERS chief actuary and a CAP member, presented on the statutory disclosure requirements in Government Code Section 2029. He explained that CalPERS’ current discount rate is 6.8%, that lower investment returns increase contribution rates and unfunded liabilities, and that the plan uses a 20-year amortization period for new unfunded liabilities. He said CAP has recommended a reasonable amortization range of 15 to 20 years and that CalPERS’ longer smoothing period helps reduce volatility in employer contributions. He also explained the timing of actuarial data: the valuation used for current contribution rates is based on the prior fiscal year’s audited data, with the next year’s rates developed later in the annual cycle. Members asked about the relationship between average employee service life and amortization, whether current market and AI-related changes could justify using more current data, whether pension benefits change when valuations are updated, and how CalPERS’ funded status has changed over time. Tarando said retiree benefits do not change based on annual valuations, that the system’s funded status has improved from roughly the mid-60% range about a decade ago to around 80% or higher more recently, and that CalPERS is monitoring possible long-term workforce effects from AI but sees no immediate need to change assumptions. Michael Cohen of CalPERS said the system complies with information requests and is independently audited annually, but there has been no formal federal review released. In public comment, a representative of county governments praised the improved funded status and PEPRA reforms. The hearing concluded with remarks reaffirming fiduciary responsibility and the importance of protecting CalPERS beneficiaries.

Transcript Highlights:

• of plus or minus 2% compared to the current discount rate.
• For reference, CalPERS' current discount rate is 6.8%.
• We use that rate to discount future benefit payments.
• establishes the contribution rates and the liabilities.
• You obviously want your contribution rates to rely on audits.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement and the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement held a joint hearing required by law to receive an independent report from the California Actuarial Advisory Panel on CalPERS. Opening remarks emphasized CalPERS’ role in providing retirement security for roughly two million members and the importance of actuarial assumptions to state budgeting and long-term pension health. Scott Tarando, CalPERS chief actuary and a CAP member, presented the report with Michael Cohen of CalPERS’ investment office available for questions. Tarando explained the statutory disclosure requirements under Government Code Section 2029, including sensitivity analysis around CalPERS’ 6.8% discount rate, and discussed how investment return assumptions and the 20-year amortization period affect contribution rates, unfunded liabilities, and budget volatility. He said shorter amortization periods would raise near-term costs but reduce long-term interest costs, and noted that CalPERS’ current approach is intended to smooth contribution changes over time. He also described the timing of the annual valuation process, explaining that contribution rates for a given fiscal year are based on the most recently audited year-end data and are approved by the board before being used in the budget process. Members asked about the relationship between average employee service life and amortization, whether more current data could be used, the effect of AI and labor-market changes on future assumptions, whether retirees’ benefits change with annual valuations, and CalPERS’ funded status. Tarando said the average expected working lifetime is about 11 to 12 years, while CalPERS uses a 20-year amortization period; he also said retiree benefits are set at retirement and do not change based on later valuations. He estimated CalPERS’ funded status had risen from the mid-60% range about 10 years ago to around 79% at June 30 and above 80% more recently. Cohen said CalPERS had complied with federal information requests and that no formal federal review had been released. During public comment, a county association representative praised the improved funded status and PEPRA reforms. The chairs closed by reiterating fiduciary responsibility and the need to protect CalPERS’ long-term stability, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• BUT I BELIEVE IT IS HOW WE ANALYZE A RATE CASE.
• AND THAT IS ON TOP OF RATE REQUESTS, YOU ALSO GET FROM UTILITY COMPANIES REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL RATES
• AND AS WE LOOK AT THOSE PROGRAMS WE THEN COMPARED THEM TO RATE AND ASK SO WHAT IS THE RATE IMPACT AND
• >> Mike LaRosa: I THINK EVERY TIME THERE IS A RATE CASE THERE IS A MODIFICATION.
• THE YEAR LETTER WOULD SAY WE ARE GOING TO FILE A RATE CASE.

Transcript Highlights:

• Since then, we've only been able to have the accountability rate ratings released for one single. year
• If a campus receives a not rated rating for any reason, the commissioner will continue. the intervention
• with the school that doesn't want to be rated maybe but we don't know they were not rated because their
• 31 DNF rated schools under that system.
• It's been quality rating and there are other ratings. I see Yasmin nodding her head, so.

Bills: SB451 , SB762 , SB1490 , SB1262 , SB1459 , SB1750 , SB1962 , SB2252 , SB2253 , SB2365

Committees: Senate Education , Senate Education K-16

Transcript Highlights:

• The tax rate is 0.1%.
• Next, the premium rate...
• There is a 1.2% statutory rate cap and also a requirement that the rate be adjusted downward if the account
• The bill also requires the actuarial rate to close the rate collection year with a four-month reserve
• As under both the current statutory formula and the bill's actuarial rate, ESD projects the rate to hit

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on a series of housing, education, workforce, and court-related bills. On Substitute Senate Bill 5884, staff described changes to a sales and use tax deferral for redeveloping vacant or underused land into affordable housing, including broader eligible property definitions and lower affordability thresholds in designated areas. Testimony was mixed: builders opposed language they feared could encourage project labor agreements, while Spokane and Kent representatives supported the bill but asked for flexibility on affordability mix requirements. On Senate Bill 6256, which expands a property tax exemption for nonprofit low-income rental housing to include certain co-located community uses during construction and extends the pre-construction exemption period, testimony was strongly supportive from housing nonprofits and local housing partners, with questions focused on clawback provisions. The committee also heard Substitute Senate Bill 6027, which expands allowable uses of local housing and supportive housing sales tax revenue, adjusts a REET exemption timeline, broadens emergency housing definitions, and changes use of the Affordable Housing for All account. County, housing, and nonprofit witnesses said the bill would help preserve housing and services amid federal funding uncertainty, though Snohomish County asked for an amendment to allow rental assistance. Substitute Senate Bill 6018 would revise the Housing Finance Commission’s authority, including direct lending and bond counsel terms; commission staff said it would modernize outdated restrictions and improve financing flexibility. Substitute Senate Bill 6028 would create a revolving loan fund for mixed-income homeownership projects; supporters said it would help smaller infill projects pencil, while staff noted the loans would be subordinate and carry some risk. Later, the committee heard Senate Bill 6275 on the community reinvestment program, which would require periodic plan updates, reporting, and a WSIPP study, while also expressing legislative intent to continue at least $100 million annually in the account. Advocates, workforce groups, legal aid providers, and small business owners testified that the program supports communities harmed by past disinvestment and should be made permanent and more accountable. Substitute Senate Bill 5961 would move the Imagination Library program from DCYF to OSPI; early literacy advocates and local partners supported the transfer as better aligned with school readiness. Substitute Senate Bill 5969 would integrate IEP transition plans with high school and beyond plans, and a prior critic said amendments addressed her concerns. Second Substitute Senate Bill 5292 would shift PFML premium rate-setting to the annual actuarial report and raise the reserve target; labor and industry witnesses supported the change, while a policy group opposed the program’s costs. The committee also heard Senate Bill 5868 to add one superior court judge each in Skagit and Yakima counties. Judges and county officials testified that caseloads, population growth, and backlogs justify the additions, and county leaders said they had already budgeted for their share. Finally, Substitute Senate Bill 5827 would allow service members to use pre-discharge certification to claim veterans’ civil service preference; the sponsor said it would solve a timing problem for transitioning service members. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the transcript, as the meeting consisted of bill briefings and public testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the federal funds rate is also falling.
• it is the basis of all other interest rates in the economy.
• So when Interest rates drop to 2.5.
• So that's Why interest rates are at eight or higher, and you're not seeing a lower interest rate unless
• And Ashley, thank you for helping us with our bond rating.

Committees: Senate Senate Finance , Senate House Appropriations & Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> services to reenact the framework rates. services to reenact the framework rates.
• </c> state and in my district how the rate state and in my district how the rate changes<00:21:46.000
• </c> statute to the flat tiered rates statute to the flat tiered rates for<00:24:09.320><c> 2026</c><
• </c> There's a human cost for the flat rates. There's a human cost for the flat rates.
• </c> at the 2019 study that pushed the rate at the 2019 study that pushed the rate tier<00:35:16.520>

Bills: HF4491 , HF4338 , HF4288 , HF4566

Committee: House Human Services Finance and Policy

Keywords: Medical Assistance, Medicaid, prepayment review, claims review, fee-for-service, provider integrity, high-risk provider, high-risk service, fraud prevention, program integrity, Department of Human Services, CMS, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, health care billing, medical claims, provider enrollment, Indian Health Service, Minnesota Statutes chapter 256B, human services, medical assistance

Transcript Highlights:

• So they asked to use retail rates, not the applicable rate, which was the full cost, but the average.
• of their rates.
• Essentially, in all the CSG programs, there are three rates: the original applicable retail rate up to
• of the retail rate.
• So essentially you revisit rates.

Bills: HF2103 , HF2793

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• There seemed to be some concern about the rate setting. Can you speak to the rate setting?
• But no new rate increases.
• So the proposal is to cap the rates at the lower bound of the actuarially sound rate.
• They will have their rate increases maintained since the 2024 rate increases.
• can be provided at that rate.

Transcript Highlights:

• It does not take into account whether or not the rates they propose... ...the rates they proposed the
• So what I... ...approval for the rate, or they're going to regulate your rate, but your rate is already
• factors that you can use to develop the rate.
• have a rate review, um, a rate review, but not rate regulation.
• I own a business and my insurance rates went up.

Committee: Senate Health