Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Digital Equity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wide support from advocates, fiscal caution from agencies on digital‑equity bill
Summary
Testimony on substitute HB 23‑65 centered on expanding the broadband office’s role in digital equity, formalizing the Digital Equity Forum, and directing ISPs to share low‑cost plan data. Rural advocates urged passage for access; Commerce flagged multi‑FTE staffing and NGFO operating impacts.
A substitute to House Bill 23‑65, described to the committee as a digital equity update, prompted broad stakeholder testimony and fiscal questions from staff. Nonpartisan staff told lawmakers the bill expands the state Broadband Office’s purpose to include digital equity, requires reporting on progress for the state digital equity plan (subject to appropriation in the second substitute) and clarifies duties for the Digital Equity Forum and a renamed Digital Opportunity Program.
Commerce staff estimated substantial ongoing NGFO operating impacts driven primarily by staffing — an estimate of 7.7 ongoing FTEs beginning in fiscal year 2027 — and projected several million dollars in operating costs across the outlook. The agency also said portions of the bill would be subject to appropriation in the substitute, reducing immediate fiscal exposure.
Testimony featured rural and county advocates who described internet affordability and access gaps (e.g., Okanogan County figures and lack of devices and skills). The Digital Equity Learning Network and local coalitions urged action after federal funding losses; several witnesses pressed for stronger accountability and timely planning to replace lost federal dollars. Industry witnesses and local official testifiers generally supported increased coordination but sought clarity on costs and implementation timelines.
Committee members heard arguments that the bill would clarify adoption goals and better target resources for communities left behind, while staff cautioned the committee to consider the staffing and translation, legal services, and outreach costs that the Broadband Office and partner agencies would likely incur.
No floor action was taken at the hearing; staff said a revised fiscal note would be published reflecting the substitute’s adjustments.
