Appropriates money for the expenses, grants, refunds, and distributions of the several departments and offices of state government
HB 2019 is Missouri’s capital improvements appropriations bill for fiscal year 2026-2027. It authorizes spending from the General Revenue Fund, federal funds, and various dedicated state funds for a wide range of planning, construction, renovation, repair, land acquisition, and infrastructure projects across state government. The bill includes funding for education facilities, early childhood centers, parks and historic sites, water and sewer infrastructure, conservation projects, public safety facilities, National Guard facilities, health and social services buildings, transportation projects, higher education capital projects, and several local or regional redevelopment and community projects.
The bill is highly project-specific and uses geographic and population-based descriptions to direct money to particular facilities, cities, counties, and institutions. Major appropriations include state park and conservation improvements, a large allocation for the Missouri State Capitol building, highway patrol and public safety facilities, National Guard modernization, university and workforce development projects, and numerous local infrastructure and nonprofit capital grants. In total, the bill appropriates about $202.7 million, with roughly $103.1 million from General Revenue, $37.0 million in federal funds, and $62.6 million from other funds.
HB 2019 affects state law by making specific appropriations for capital improvement purposes and directing state agencies to spend funds only for the enumerated projects during the 2026-2027 fiscal year. It does not broadly amend substantive program law, but it does authorize and condition spending for named state departments, commissions, and local recipients, including requirements such as local matching funds for some projects. The bill also allocates money from several special funds, including the Missouri State Capitol Commission Capitol Preservation Fund, the Conservation Commission Fund, the State Highways and Transportation Department Fund, and the OA I-70 Project Fund, thereby shaping how those funds may be used.
The bill appears to have generally strong legislative support, as reflected in the large bipartisan vote margins in both chambers. The House approved the bill and later concurred in Senate amendments with substantial majorities, and the Senate third reading vote was also overwhelmingly favorable. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting history suggests broad acceptance of the capital spending package overall.
The main points of contention likely centered on the bill’s many geographically targeted appropriations and the use of state funds for local projects, including facilities for nonprofits, community centers, sports complexes, museums, and other site-specific improvements. Such earmarked spending can draw criticism from members concerned about fairness, statewide priorities, or the concentration of funds in particular districts. Some projects also require local matching funds, which may have been a point of discussion for recipients’ ability to leverage state dollars, but the recorded votes indicate that any disagreements did not prevent passage.