A BILL for an Act to provide for a transfer to the infrastructure revolving loan fund.
HB 1213 would direct the Office of Management and Budget to transfer $20 million from the strategic investment and improvements fund into the infrastructure revolving loan fund during the 2025-2027 biennium. The bill is a straightforward funding measure and does not create a new program or change eligibility rules; instead, it reallocates existing state money to support the revolving loan fund used for infrastructure financing.
In practical terms, the bill would increase the resources available for infrastructure loans, which can help finance local or state infrastructure projects through the revolving loan mechanism. Because the bill is limited to a one-time transfer, its legal effect is to amend state fund balances and appropriations management for the biennium rather than to alter broader infrastructure policy or tax law.
The bill would require the Office of Management and Budget to move $20 million from the strategic investment and improvements fund to the infrastructure revolving loan fund, affecting state fiscal administration and the balance of those two funds. It would likely benefit entities that rely on infrastructure revolving loans, such as local governments or project sponsors, by increasing lending capacity. No other statutes are directly changed in the bill text, and the measure is limited to a biennial transfer.
The available record shows no committee transcript, vote detail, or recorded debate, so there is no documented public sentiment to summarize beyond the bill’s introduction and eventual failure. Based on the bill’s narrow fiscal purpose, it appears to have been a funding proposal rather than a controversial policy change, but the legislative history provided does not indicate support or opposition arguments.
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided materials. If there was opposition, it is not reflected in transcripts or vote records here. Potential areas of disagreement would likely have centered on whether $20 million should be moved out of the strategic investment and improvements fund and whether the infrastructure revolving loan fund was the best use of those dollars, but those concerns are not explicitly stated in the record provided.