Members of a conference committee considering Senate Bill 2271 approved an amendment that renumbers a subsection and removes language calling for a single license for assisted-living, basic care and adult residential facilities.

The committee approved Amendment 25.1225.03003 on a 6-0 voice roll call after debate over whether the bill should require "one license" or instead direct study of alternative licensing structures. Senator Hogan moved the amendment, saying it included two technical changes: changing a subsection letter and eliminating the phrase "one license." "I would move amendment, 25.1225.03003 with the 2 changes on line 16, changing F to E, and on line 17 eliminating under 1 license," Hogan said.

The amendment drew objections from some members who said specifying a single license could foreclose useful options. Representative Murphy said he preferred language that directs examination of multiple licensing options: "I prefer... examining licensing options." Another member argued that the bill could recommend a new licensing structure without requiring full implementation by a target date, allowing for phased rollout and more stakeholder work; stakeholders had suggested extending the timeline because some worried a single-license change might be "a bridge too far to get that done by '27." Senator Hogan and others noted that facilities vary — some combine multiple care types under one roof while others are freestanding — and that a more flexible approach would accommodate both arrangements.

After the debate the clerk conducted a roll call. The record shows the following members voting aye on the amendment: Senator Rohr, Senator Van Osteen, Senator Hogan, Representative Belt, Representative Murphy and Representative Rohr. The clerk announced a 6-0 vote in favor of the amendment.

Representative Murphy subsequently moved the amended bill; the transcript records the motion but does not record a final roll-call vote on final passage in the excerpt provided. The committee adjourned after members confirmed bill carriers on both chambers' sides.

The discussion focused on the scope of the committee's directive (whether to require a single license or to study multiple structures), the practical differences between combined and freestanding facilities, and the timeline for any recommended changes. No statute, ordinance, court case or funding action was cited in the provided transcript excerpt.