Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Developmental Disabilities Service Coordinator Ratio topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel debates 30:1 service coordinator ratio in Senate Bill 7‑25; members split on budget and policy approach
Summary
Senate Bill 7‑25, which would require a 30:1 staffing ratio for service coordinators in community developmental disabilities programs, drew extended debate April 8 over its cost and whether a fixed ratio is the right policy tool.
Committee staff summarized Senate Bill 7‑25 on April 8 as a measure directing the Department of Human Services to adopt rules requiring community developmental disabilities programs and service support brokerages to maintain a 30 to 1 staffing ratio of service coordinators or personal agents for the individuals they serve. The bill was described as operative on Jan. 1, 2026, and as sunsetting on Jan. 2, 2027; staff said a fiscal statement is posted and that there is no revenue impact.
The committee heard extended testimony and commentary from senators who said they were sympathetic to the lived‑experience testimony provided in earlier hearings about large caseloads for service coordinators. Several senators said they view the bill as a signal to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means to examine case management funding and capacity, rather than as a ready‑to‑implement budget solution.
Senators noted a large fiscal estimate attached to the bill—committee discussion cited figures of roughly $72 million for the current biennium and about $97 million for the next biennium—figures some members called "a hard pill to swallow" in the current fiscal climate. Other senators said they were uneasy with the statutory specificity of a 30:1 ratio and preferred broader case‑management reforms tied to budgetary planning.
A motion to send the bill with a due‑pass recommendation and referral to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means was introduced, but before a final vote the chair temporarily recessed the discussion to allow more time for consideration and outreach to agency staff. The chair later closed the work session and the committee carried the bill over to the committee’s April 9 meeting. Chair Gelserboom said she regretted the committee could not resolve the matter that day and apologized to self‑advocates who had worked on the measure.
The committee left the item on the carryover list; senators emphasized that the underlying concern—high caseloads and the importance of case management for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities—remains under active consideration.
