[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6315864,"mediaKeyId","2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200","parentId",2378102,"title","Committee hears competing views on new resentencing pathways and retroactive juvenile point removal","audioSeconds",2147,"startMs",3561000,"endMs",5708000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200&start=3561&end=5708","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200/thumbnail_3561000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6315864/Washington/Committee-hears-competing-views-on-new-resentencing-pathways-and-retroactive-juvenile-point-removal","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315864-7113f30665a8947c3899e6a8c12a7d86/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181889&Signature=P0GoetMu5pSILSQKhr7fp3jmoS-xJq8G90lVX37XzZJMfk0WRUFFnfe2xzhcJoTaxLRcM5boPjSHz1ZDVThvR0xyjrRR~ylA3zAnj8eK4~HGiuyYSt-gVi3e1-oXmcc934SvNyn6uRVo9jyebT2Y4UXg4XCe2RjmbMHZ9oRJAc7LhVcziyXfQmVNQUBr0tEhVra2kIeI1ChPlCRKRlN4q-j6iOxeJ0rrcQJEMnVPxsXlJLAN8DOosQUfye1v5QtL2e07Q1QsHjpD4UZZJHOOYxCUPueTe1MSRzOeFFHLUe8CjTcHyQN-FKA7pQcxKSJy~hdUgtTGHOgsbMPfiNRyJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Appropriations","date","2025-02-22T00:00:00Z","article","Two high‑stakes criminal justice measures drew extensive testimony and repeated staff briefings on procedure, eligibility and fiscal impact.

The first bill, Substitute House Bill 11 25, establishes a new petition pathway allowing certain eligible people convicted of felonies to petition for modification of their original sentences in the interest of justice under a phased timeline tied to age at offense, time served and medical conditions; eligibility expands over a six‑year rollout. The bill preserves exclusions for persistent offender life sentences and many first‑degree murder convictions; if the court grants a petition, the resentenced person must receive community custody for five years and the new sentence cannot exceed the original. The proposal also requires victim notice and support services through the Office of Crime Victims Advocacy. Staff briefings emphasized the court’s role, the prosecuting attorney’s notification duties and a standard of proof for release (preponderance of evidence that the petitioner meets standards for demonstrated rehabilitation or minimal risk of reoffense).

The second related bill, Substitute House Bill 12 74, addresses retroactive application of a 2023 legislative change that barred most juvenile adjudications from being counted in adult offender scores. SHB 12 74 would entitle eligible incarcerated individuals to petition to be resentenced with a rebuttable presumption if their offender score was raised by juvenile points that the 2023 law no longer permits. Eligibility is staggered by release date and time served; the bill includes detailed implementation timelines and requires the Office of Crime Victims Advocacy to establish flexible funds and support services for victims and survivors. Staff distributed preliminary fiscal notes showing millions in potential costs across Commerce, DOC, Office of Public Defense and courts for advocacy services, counsel appointments (subject to appropriations), training and administrative support.

Public testimony was sharply divided. Prosecuting attorneys and the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys warned that the proposal is not victim‑centered, could be retraumatizing and would create significant local and county costs for handling hundreds of petitions; they urged the legislature to fund local capacity if it adopted the bill. Several crime‑victim advocates and surviving family members strongly opposed HB 11 25 and 12 74, emphasizing retraumatization and fiscal burdens on victim services at a time of federal funding cuts. Conversely, public‑defense leadership, judges and tribal representatives supported the bills as opportunities for justice, racial equity and measured second look review. Judges and the Minority & Justice Commission argued the court is the proper forum for individualized review and pointed to racial disparities in sentencing that retroactivity would help address.

Staff and fiscal analysts presented multi‑agency cost estimates and flagged administrative burdens: DOC estimated costs for tracking eligible offenders and planning resentencing; Office of Public Defense estimated millions for counsel if appointed (the OPD indicated it would withdraw its fiscal note to avoid impeding the policy debate); the Office of Crime Victims Advocacy estimated nearly $1M for victim assistance in early biennium spending. Proponents and opponents both urged additional funding if the legislature created a new resentencing pathway. The committee did not take final action at the hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Appropriations - 2/22/2025 9:00 AM","oneSentenceSummary","Two related bills would create new resentencing routes: one establishes a phased petition process for felony resentencing and the other retroactively removes juvenile points from offender scores to allow resentencing; both drew intense support and opposition.","taxTitle","Appropriations, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20254,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6315869,"Committee hears split testimony on recycling bills: needs assessment versus full EPR program",972,634000,1606000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200&start=634&end=1606","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200/thumbnail_634000.jpg","/articles/6315869/Washington/Committee-hears-split-testimony-on-recycling-bills-needs-assessment-versus-full-EPR-program","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315869-de4e69bbce42e4a4c6750711c715b168/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181889&Signature=oSMpvbQkeFyXRi74OdOH8kmgfXRSzTyka-LjrKwrl5TmEil~mabEQTEE~A9ZQBhctSf56ibVGQmkAUBco94ElaFcttOTXl4gUz1wuaiK3~FLvaV2zpbA8bUjw5ypzN2IcnSXUawmo00QTwk-zGTSRRuPGxfXkOtwslhTQ6DO3FOrAsLR8lhBcoKf049Eed9ec-ZEF~29W55lIVtXU4UomztUqJVoNR4dqx7hs47wIeUeysqJwpuwcuAXrcO~RaHMmHNJhwynKwPpClZm~ilXJW1MDdiPSUXXFsufJhc4jbE9tfYgoq5PyZRj6Z2kB0L7Cb8wj5Jg6hTlS7WgqCtbvw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Two related measures on recycling and producer responsibility drew the committee's longest public hearing of the day.

Substitute House Bill 1071 (briefed by Jacob Lipson and Dan Jones) directs the Department of Ecology to carry out a statewide needs assessment of the recycling system, create lists of materials suitable for curbside/residential drop‑off collection by 2026, oversee producer registration and reporting, form advisory bodies and task forces (including on misleading recyclability claims), and set post‑consumer recycled content rules for additional categories of plastic. Ecology staff described multi‑million dollar costs from the climate commitment account, recycled content account and other funds to implement needs assessments and rulemaking; local governments would have indeterminate costs to participate on advisory bodies.

Substitute House Bill 1150 (a separate EPR proposal) would require producers of covered packaging and paper products to participate in and fund a producer responsibility organization (PRO). The PRO would develop and implement collection plans based on Ecology’s lists and would be required to meet performance targets for recycling, reuse and post‑consumer recycled content; Ecology would approve plans, oversee enforcement and assess fees to producers. The bill also includes wage standards for material recovery facility employees, studies, and grant and rulemaking authorities. Staff briefings estimated Ecology start‑up and rulemaking costs to be covered by producer fees and projected multi‑million biennial flows through a new non‑appropriated account.

Public testimony split largely along industry and local‑government lines. Industry groups that process and recycle plastics — and many local solid‑waste operators and industry trade associations (Waste Management, Sunshine Disposal, Waste Connections, Washington Refuse and Recycling Association) — testified in favor of HB 1071’s needs assessment approach, saying Washington needs careful planning and predictable fiscal impacts before adopting a full EPR model; many urged support for an alternate EPR bill (HB 1150’s rival, HB 1150/1150-like bills were discussed in the hearing). Witnesses warned of high per‑household costs under full EPR based on other jurisdictions' experience and urged the legislature not to add costs that would pass to ratepayers.

Producer and brand groups (AmeriPen, Association of Washington Business, Consumer Brands Association) expressed conditional support for needs assessment but concerns about immediate designation of curbside materials and rulemaking authority that could shift costs and compliance burdens to producers and ultimately consumers. Several speakers emphasized that a transparent, well‑funded needs assessment would allow better targeting of investments and avoid increasing household collection fees.

Other organizations including EPR proponents (EPR Leadership Forum, Washington Beverage Association, City and municipal advocates and some environmental groups) testified in support of shifting program funding to producers to expand recycling access statewide and to create consistent service for rural communities. Representatives said a properly designed PRO could expand curbside service to more than 500,000 homes and create incentives for producers to reduce problematic packaging.

Committee members did not act on either bill at the hearing. Staff fiscal notes, included in the electronic bill book, show multi‑million dollar implementation estimates for Ecology, UTC and other agencies; many costs for EPR (HB 1150) are projected to be paid from new producer fee accounts rather than the general fund. Several witnesses urged the committee to prefer the needs assessment and planning approach (HB 1071) while others urged passage of a producer‑funded, accountable EPR program (HB 1150).","Two competing recycling bills — one requiring a Department of Ecology needs assessment and one establishing a producer responsibility organization — prompted robust testimony from recyclers, waste haulers, brand producers and local governments.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6315859,"Providers warn proposed delay to nursing‑home rate rebase would force closures and reduce access",2583,12305000,14888000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200&start=12305&end=14888","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200/thumbnail_12305000.jpg","/articles/6315859/Washington/Providers-warn-proposed-delay-to-nursinghome-rate-rebase-would-force-closures-and-reduce-access","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315859-7f7be791f5119c21670b767acf61c0e6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181889&Signature=k07futKME3by4ZJXHVNejciPTr9tdv-ZwDxIgv-6yB5eo2h9zh5mzKHb-87-rBBcIsQwhWDdi4SXAT75uldfK~zkG40DWWk-CfPdao5gPXRITXc1RuhMHTg4ER9f-NQKhmRI99rZB3uRvWUamV6gXQPesaCMQpoDpAPVCjFYGtC3awPt8TwC3HxAbBbP1Ddg6GQdE4bhdRuOo-PIW3EHKodbvZuC~f7snQyRgFCXeu21~sW6cmMi-CtCMCuXxx5q5N1sP6QB5hasf-BAuPNjQI~vowWtar4CiNklfFlEyuaITY7Q~aHQIq9cSrUva7zTQ6iR6v~4YQs7bg182Li~Xw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Legislative staff briefed the committee on an amendment to Substitute House Bill 14 76 that changes the cost‑report year used for the next Medicaid nursing‑facility rate rebase. The briefing said the amendment requires use of 2024 cost reports for the delayed rebase (instead of 2025), and corrected a drafting error that would have unintentionally reverted 2026–27 payments to a lower average. Staff said the combined effect lowers the immediate state cost of delaying the rebase but still leaves a net budget impact across the 2025–2029 window.

Staff noted the nursing‑facility rate is composed of direct care (about 67% of the rate), indirect care (about 20%), capital and quality components. In fiscal year 2025 the Medicaid average daily rate reported in staff briefing materials was around $376 per day and roughly 7,800 DSHS clients received care in nursing facilities. Delaying the rebase would hold rates at earlier (2022) cost levels for multiple years under the amendment outlined in briefing.

The public hearing drew dozens of provider, administrator and labor witnesses from across the state. Administrators from facilities in urban and rural counties said the proposed delay would further widen the gap between costs and Medicaid reimbursements. Many cited steep increases in wages, minimum wage effects, staffing shortages and large price increases for supplies. Facility administrators and trade groups (Washington Health Care Association, LeadingAge Washington and several multi‑site administrators) warned that prior rebasing delays resulted in permanent bed closures and long hospital backlogs; several witnesses cited earlier experience in which many nursing homes closed after funding lapses.

Frontline labor and facility clinical leaders testified the delay would mean they could not raise wages to keep pace with local labor markets and could lose staff. Witnesses documented facility staffing and supply cost inflation since 2022 and urged the legislature to fund updated rates rather than hold costs at an earlier base year. Several witnesses said the policy would shift cost and delay needed investments in staffing and infrastructure, especially in rural counties that have only one nursing facility.

Office of Financial Management staff said inclusion of this delay was proposed in the governor’s budget as one of several difficult tradeoffs to balance the operating package. OFM staff confirmed the proposal defers some state spending but acknowledged it risks closures and capacity loss.

No committee action was taken; the hearing record contains detailed testimony from providers, trade associations, labor and local elected officials.","An amendment to SHB 14 76 would delay and alter the timing and cost base for the Medicaid nursing‑facility rebase; providers testified the freeze would leave payments out of step with rising wages and supplies and could force facility closures and hospital backlogs.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6315854,"Workers and employers split on bill banning credit‑card processing fees from tips",258,10525000,10783000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200&start=10525&end=10783","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200/thumbnail_10525000.jpg","/articles/6315854/Washington/Workers-and-employers-split-on-bill-banning-creditcard-processing-fees-from-tips","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315854-e138e38e9c6ab870e4cd147efd6bbaa3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181889&Signature=N3lel-L1JnMT~rNyh3vjWYsdqXaFnx4MKYaP954jd9uVUicAMuIACrwvH1KeXQ88l2U2pu1J-b9QqUb9xLK9YOi867XmjUW0KCP0e3AhRKEtOZXzf1gUZWvu~fC3zFRlj2~fwF1yinvi2H3ZZ7AZ9g-Gz6bMG7fWODKmz07-YLi8DFgGQXpfD~5YJGfUPWripJjdqu8uR3uf6ey~AtYLd01kB5e1SoK1AaPWl130JUL~q2FB05AQl82~cRUUOXYU2rV02e75ksm~vYCdgU74VnBuhsxPcz~2VbczuuaZJei7O-KUsrlApdxd3Zv2wuofv-RZreMQJ7Mt6gq6HQ-Phg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 16 23 would bar employers from deducting any portion of an employee’s tips, gratuities or service charges to cover credit‑card processing fees. Staff briefed members that under current law employers may deduct a proportional share of processing costs from pooled tips, and the bill would make that practice illegal.

The Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) fiscal note estimated administrative costs tied to increased complaint volume, case processing and outreach: L&I projected additional staffing and IT changes and noted potential penalty receipts that are indeterminate. The Office of the Attorney General and Office of Administrative Hearings also forecast modest additional costs related to representation and hearings billed back to L&I under existing arrangements.

Business representatives, including the Washington Hospitality Association and the Washington Retail Association, opposed the bill at the hearing. They argued the legislation would shift processing costs from multinational card networks to small businesses that already operate on thin margins. Julia Gorton of the Hospitality Association said: “We cannot recoup anything above the fees that we have to pay” and warned that some small restaurants “will make the decision between staying open and having to close their doors.” Representatives urged federal or interchange‑fee regulation rather than shifting fees to employers.

Unions and worker advocates testified in favor. A representative of Unite Here told the committee that the deduction of card fees from workers’ tips is “essentially a tax on working people,” that tips are the property of employees and that many employers have sought contract language to take processing fees out of tipped income. Advocates urged passage and asked the committee to revisit assumptions in L&I’s fiscal note.

The committee did not take action on the bill at the hearing.","House Bill 16 23 would prohibit employers from deducting any portion of employee tips or gratuities to cover credit‑card processing fees. Restaurant and hospitality groups warned of transfer of costs to businesses and potential closures; labor and hospitality‑worker unions said the measure protects low‑paid tipped workers and urged passage.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6315875,"Committee hears bill expanding penalties for interference and intimidation at schools",1647,88000,1735000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200&start=88&end=1735","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2378102-0337b34e85a060d616a92a64df0c1200/thumbnail_88000.jpg","/articles/6315875/Washington/Committee-hears-bill-expanding-penalties-for-interference-and-intimidation-at-schools","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6315875-e82d7a8cb9e330a2766024d093b01b73/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181889&Signature=fSPHpABTINXwv83uUm3ZxpgUw2YK76x01hWjKkH4v82uWb3gcURt-6lOw-RaNIBZ~aJ3L1KCmgkUluWNrXGImHyieU6Ab0~WIvRf~ZtB-Ef-ykn9TmaXZ9ylBP5feS6JZvaIiXdblHs8897HMps-tBaF3J9uRTSHDNX2lADJbKuuiJ5M8bAAAqXG3DOpCKcMyRHzrim742kplRcyFcVumneirzNGt5QlnF17vgANBYoGh2NLCV6P5NzrF-3UxKJ6TanUWtIqXRxwtRznt3ncHOuhl3KseLqBQXlgDRy3mm6K6LiWm7fL4Wp3e-3o-WSrKXInhRz0TFWI6qFGOadsDA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Substitute House Bill 1085 would expand existing gross-misdemeanor offenses for interference by force or intimidation to cover employees and contractors of public and private K–12 schools, extracurricular officials and volunteers, and would raise maximum penalties for interference by force or violence to up to 364 days and a $1,000 fine.

The bill as introduced required the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) to develop standard signage about the offenses and display it at gym and auditorium entrances and athletic fields. Staff later briefed the committee on an amendment (described on the hearing bill sheet) that removes the signage requirement; staff said removing that provision also removes the estimated OSPI and school-district signage costs in the fiscal note.

Proponents at the public hearing urged the committee to pass the bill to protect coaches, referees, teachers and students. Brandy Petes, who testified about a family member who was injured while refereeing, told the committee: \"Until your loved one has been impacted, you may not ever understand.\" Other testifiers cited incidents of assault and threats at youth sporting events and said enhanced penalties and awareness would serve as a deterrent. Christopher Pokel and student Sophie Linton also spoke in favor, with Pokel saying the signage will \"go a long way towards deterrence\" and Linton saying the bill will help ensure schools are safer \"where students can learn without fear or intimidation.\"

A lone public opponent argued the bill could produce unintended harms for families: a young testifier said criminal penalties could put parents in jail and potentially place children in foster care, and said she did not believe the bill would reduce the conduct being targeted.

Staff highlighted potential local costs tied to the expanded criminal penalties, which the caseload forecast council could not quantify: local jail and juvenile detention bed costs would fall to counties. The initial fiscal note estimated a one-time OSPI signage cost and roughly $1.5 million for districts statewide if signage had been required; that cost was removed by the amendment discussed in committee.

The committee did not take final action on the bill during the hearing. The public record for the bill contains testimony from S. Linton, B. Petes, C. Pokel and staff L. Langer and D. Clark.","The House Appropriations Committee took public testimony on Substitute House Bill 1085, which would expand existing gross-misdemeanor offenses for interference by force or intimidation at K–12 schools, raise maximum penalties and create exclusion periods for nonstudents; an amendment removes a signage requirement for OSPI.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears competing views on new resentencing pathways and retroactive juvenile point removal

Committee hears split testimony on recycling bills: needs assessment versus full EPR program

Providers warn proposed delay to nursing‑home rate rebase would force closures and reduce access

Workers and employers split on bill banning credit‑card processing fees from tips

Committee hears bill expanding penalties for interference and intimidation at schools