Appropriations: Committee hears bills on corrections care, strikes, algorithmic rent tools, child-support delays and more

The House Appropriations Committee on April 4 heard staff briefings and extensive public testimony on a string of bills touching corrections behavioral health, reentry and partial confinement, unemployment insurance for striking workers, proposed limits on algorithmic rent‑setting, and several budget-timing proposals including delays to a child‑support pass-through and to recovery of state ABD payments.

Why it matters: several bills carry near-term fiscal impacts or policy changes that would affect service delivery (Department of Corrections, Employment Security Department, Department of Health), local governments (signage or enforcement), and industries (rental housing platforms, solar installers). Lawmakers and stakeholders debated public safety, fiscal exposure to the unemployment trust fund, civil-rights protections in schools, and how to manage new technologies in housing markets.

Corrections behavioral health and licensing (Substitute Senate Bill 5388) Staff briefing: Lena Langer (staff, Community Safety Committee) and Yvonne Walker (fiscal) told the committee the bill removes a Department of Health licensing requirement for Department of Corrections (DOC) behavioral-health facilities and instead requires jointly adopted standards, DOH inspections, corrective plans, and DOC reimbursements to DOH for technical assistance. DOH estimated annual lost licensing fee revenue of about $75,000 and said it would need ~3.6 FTE and one-time costs (about $1.2 million) in the 2025–27 biennium; DOC estimated additional staffing to work on standards and oversight. Walker summarized the bill's total fiscal effect as about $2.6 million in 2025–27 and about $6.2 million over a four‑year outlook.

Partial confinement and reentry expansions (Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5219) Staff described changes that would allow people to participate in graduated reentry, work release and the community parenting alternative for up to 18 months at the end of their sentence, expand caregiver definitions for the parenting program, and require clinically appropriate substance‑use disorder (SUD) evaluations and access to medication‑assisted treatment before transfers. Yvonne Walker presented fiscal estimates the committee heard could produce modest net savings to the state (the Department of Corrections estimated an illustrative $327,000 general fund savings in 2025–27 and about $1.5 million over four years) by shifting people to community supervision rather than confinement. Supporters (reentry advocates, peer‑support groups) told the committee expanded reentry options reduce recidivism and save taxpayer dollars; law‑enforcement groups (Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys; Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs) opposed portions, urging caution on public‑safety and programming requirements.

Unemployment benefits for striking or locked‑out workers (Gross Sub. Senate Bill 5041) Policy staff explained the bill removes the automatic disqualification for employer‑initiated lockouts and shortens the effective disqualification window for strikes (the disqualification ends the second Sunday after the strike begins, then a one‑week waiting period applies and benefits can be paid up to 12 weeks). The Employment Security Department (ESD) fiscal briefing estimated about $1.3 million in administrative costs in 2025–27 and about 1,300 additional claims per year as a planning assumption; taxable‑employer and reimbursable‑employer impacts were characterized as indeterminate because they depend on experience ratings, the size and duration of any disputes, and litigation outcomes. Supporters (labor councils, union members and pro‑worker groups) said the change helps workers who otherwise cannot afford to strike and does not meaningfully risk the trust fund; opponents (business associations, hospitality, construction, and small‑business groups) warned of higher UI costs, administrative strains on ESD, and possible broader economic impacts if strikes lengthen. Brenda Weist (Teamsters Local 117) told the committee small probability estimates should not be the only basis for policy and noted existing procedures by which employers can protest and appeal claims. John Paul Jewell (Washington State Association of Counties) and other local‑government speakers asked that any inclusion of public employers address litigation and reimbursement burdens.

Algorithmic rent setting and property‑management restrictions (Substitute Senate Bill 5469) Staff said the bill would prohibit service‑providers from collecting rent, vacancy, and leasing‑date data from multiple landlords and using algorithms to recommend rents or renewal terms to multiple landlords; it would bar landlords from using such services and authorize the Attorney General and private parties to enforce violations under the Consumer Protection Act. The Attorney General’s office fiscal estimate anticipates $408,000 GF in 2025–27 and about $198,000 ongoing per biennium for investigative and enforcement activity; the Administrative Office of the Courts estimated modest one‑time costs to update materials. Developers, lenders, property managers and appraisers told the committee the draft language is overly broad and could block routine market analysis, appraisals, underwriting and financing, threatening housing production and small‑lender competitiveness. Advocates and some cities (Bellingham) and tenant advocates urged the committee to restrict or ban algorithmic revenue‑management software that they say can amplify rent hikes. RealPage and other software vendors disputed claims about automatic rent increases; Mike Semko (RealPage) said recommendations are not adopted automatically and that the technology is widely used across industries.

Child support pass‑through and ABD recovery delays (House Bill 2039 and House Bill 2040) Two budget‑timing measures drew substantial public testimony. Staff presented fiscal estimates for HB 2039 (delay full child‑support pass‑through to TANF families) that show about $22 million GF savings in 2025–27 and about $32 million GF in 2027–29 (about $54 million GF across four years). HB 2040 delays elimination of ABD recoveries (so the state would continue to recoup ABD while claimants await SSI) and was briefed with an estimated savings of roughly $51 million GF in 2027–29 and about $118 million GF over four years. Dozens of parents and poverty‑policy advocates testified in opposition to both delays, telling personal stories about how even modest monthly child‑support pass‑throughs and ABD lump sums matter for families living in deep poverty; several speakers urged the Legislature to seek progressive revenue instead.

Other hearings of note - Tenant and housing data (Sub. SB 5587): The bill would require the Washington Center for Real Estate Research to produce a biennial county‑level housing gap analysis; Commerce estimated about $309,000 GF per biennium for data and contract support. The Public Works Board would be required to consider projects that encourage infill and affordable housing. Cities supporting the bill argued better data helps target investments. - Tribal elders tuition waivers (SB 5110): The bill would allow community and technical colleges to waive tuition for tribal elders aged 55+, lowering the existing age threshold of 60. If all colleges used the waiver, staff estimated up to $434,000 in foregone tuition in a prior‑year enrollment snapshot; the fiscal effect was called indeterminate because the program is permissive. - College Bound scholarship (SB 5543): Staff briefed permissive expansion of eligibility to students with high‑school equivalency certificates; costs were indeterminate and not funded in the Senate budget. - Photovoltaic‑module stewardship (SSB 5175): Solar‑industry speakers urged delaying enforcement deadlines for producer take‑back obligations so installers can continue to receive product shipments; installation firms warned that without a delay panel supply into Washington could halt. Ecology estimated one‑time advisory‑committee costs later in the biennium and modest savings from delayed implementation timelines. - ASAM criteria delay for SUD placement (SSB 5361): The Health Care Authority has estimated service‑impact costs if the ASAM 4 placement criteria take effect; the bill would delay implementation from 2026 to 2028 to allow additional planning and stakeholder engagement. - Weapons in sensitive public places (GSSSB 5098): The bill would add parks where children gather, many state or local public buildings, and county fairgrounds (excluding gun shows) to locations where knowingly possessing a weapon would be prohibited. Staff cost estimates focused on signage, with Attorney General, DOT and local governments projecting one‑time and ongoing posting costs; testimony was sharply divided along public‑safety and constitutional lines.

Votes at a glance (executive session outcomes) The committee held executive session and reported multiple bills to the floor with due‑pass recommendations; outcome tallies below reflect roll‑call results recorded in committee: - SSB 5079 — reported out, due pass (30‑0‑1 excused) - SB 5189 — reported out, due pass as amended (20‑10‑1) - SSB 5253 — reported out, due pass (30‑0‑1) - SSB 5314 — reported out, due pass (20‑10‑1) - 2nd Sub. SSB 5358 — reported out, due pass (30‑0‑1) - SSB 5494 — reported out, due pass (24‑6‑1) - SSB 5568 — reported out, due pass (22‑8‑1) (One bill on the executive agenda, SSB 5570, was not taken up.)

What’s next Several bills discussed in the hearing carry direct budget implications and will require budget language or provisos; many advocates and local governments urged the Legislature to either fund implementation costs or amend to reduce local or industry burdens. Lawmakers repeatedly reminded members that amendment deadlines and publication schedules are tight for the next five days.

Ending note: the committee heard both technical briefings and intensely personal testimony during this multi‑bill hearing — budget timing decisions (child support and ABD) drew strongly emotional public testimony, while several industry‑policy hearings (rent algorithms, PV recycling, ASAM placement criteria) focused on implementation details and near‑term fiscal or supply‑chain risks.