HB 19 is Missouri’s capital improvements appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026. It authorizes spending from the state treasury for planning, design, construction, renovation, land acquisition, repairs, and related capital projects across state government departments and offices, with a total appropriation of $513,101,257. The bill includes large statewide investments in higher education, public safety, natural resources, transportation, mental health, social services, agriculture, economic development, the judiciary, and the National Guard.
The bill directs major funding to a wide range of specific projects, including a new Radioisotope Science Center at the University of Missouri Research Reactor, redevelopment of the former Missouri State Penitentiary site, Missouri State Fair livestock facilities, state park and conservation projects, Highway Patrol facilities, National Guard facilities, a new mental health hospital, youth and foster care facilities, hospital expansions, water infrastructure, libraries, museums, and numerous local economic development and community projects. Many appropriations are tied to narrow geographic or population-based criteria and several require local matching funds.
In state-law terms, HB 19 does not create broad regulatory changes; instead, it makes targeted appropriations under Article IV, Section 28 of the Missouri Constitution for capital projects and related expenditures during the 2025-2026 fiscal year. It allocates $327.5 million in General Revenue, $91.2 million in federal funds, and $94.4 million in other funds, and it authorizes spending only for the listed purposes and funds. The bill affects state agencies, public universities, local governments, nonprofits, hospitals, and other entities that are named or fit the bill’s location-specific descriptions.
The overall sentiment appears strongly favorable, as reflected in the large bipartisan vote margins: 144-5 in the House and 27-7 in the Senate. The bill’s broad scope and inclusion of projects across many regions and sectors suggest it was viewed as a major infrastructure and capital investment package rather than a partisan policy measure. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting history indicates substantial support.
The main points of contention likely relate to the bill’s many earmarked projects, especially those that are highly specific to individual cities, counties, institutions, or private and nonprofit entities. Potential concerns include the use of general revenue for localized projects, the large size of some appropriations, and whether the bill favors particular districts or organizations. The requirement for local matches on some items may have been intended to address those concerns, but the bill still contains numerous narrowly tailored appropriations that could draw scrutiny as earmarks.
HB 19 is a fiscal appropriations measure that authorizes capital-improvement spending for state departments, universities, local infrastructure, and selected nonprofit and public projects for FY 2026. It does not amend substantive regulatory statutes, but it does direct how state funds may be spent, including general revenue, federal funds, and other dedicated funds, and it conditions spending on the listed purposes and constitutional appropriations requirements. The bill affects a broad range of state agencies and outside recipients by funding construction, renovation, acquisition, equipment, and infrastructure projects statewide.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s many highly specific, location-based appropriations and earmarks, some of which benefit particular cities, counties, universities, nonprofits, hospitals, and cultural institutions. Critics could question whether some projects are too narrowly targeted or whether general revenue should fund local or quasi-private projects. Items involving large sums, such as the MURR radioisotope center, the Missouri State Fair facilities, the mental health hospital, and the convention center/parking garage project, may also have drawn scrutiny over cost, prioritization, and local match requirements.