Transcript Highlights:

• Those give are projected to be built.
• of it and it's it's a big big project. of it and it's it's a big big project.
• or 60% into the project.
• or 60% into the project, so if those funds were available, we could get that project off the ground.
• or 60% into the 50% into the project or 60% into the project.<00:31:05.919> So<00:31:06.320><

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:03 Roll Call 00:00:08 Discussion of Indiana Residential Infrastructure Fund 00:01:27 Discussion of Affordable Housing Trust Fund 00:33:30 Discussion of Urban Infill 01:12:37 Approval of Minutes from July Meeting 01:39:00 Adjournment 01:39:42, 958, all

Summary: The Housing Task Force heard a presentation from Anita Sanford of the Homebuilders Association of Kentucky and Sheri Cybert of Indiana’s Residential Infrastructure Fund about Indiana’s low-interest loan program for local housing infrastructure. They described the program as a voluntary, locally driven model that helps communities finance roads, sewers, sidewalks, traffic lights, turning lanes, and other infrastructure needed for new housing development. Sanford emphasized that infrastructure and regulation are major drivers of housing costs, citing estimates that infrastructure can account for up to 30% of a home’s cost and regulations another 25%, and said the association is studying Kentucky-specific regulatory costs. She also noted that every $1,000 added to new home construction can price out about 2,000 Kentucky households. Cybert explained that Indiana’s program, administered through the Indiana Finance Authority, began in 2023 with $75 million appropriated over two years and has since closed 17 loans totaling $60.7 million, with more than 2,700 projected housing units. The program reserves 70% of funds for rural communities and 30% for urban communities, requires applications from local governments rather than developers, and asks communities to show need through a market study, describe the infrastructure and housing to be built, and provide preliminary engineering plans and a repayment source. She said the loans currently carry an interest rate around 3.5%, reset quarterly, and that the program has generated about $25 million in savings to communities compared with private borrowing. She also described recent Indiana legislative changes that encourage higher density and other zoning reforms, and said a majority of those local ordinance changes must be adopted for an application to be fundable. Members asked about the ordinance requirements, the funding split between rural and urban areas, repayment mechanisms, and whether there were caps on project size. Cybert said repayment is worked out case by case, often through existing or project-specific TIFs, temporary tax agreements, or letters of credit, and that the program has no cap on request size or income/affordability restrictions. She said the largest request funded was $19 million for a 700-unit project. Co-chair Mills and others discussed whether Kentucky could adopt a similar model and what it would cost, while Sanford and Cybert said they were still refining budget estimates. Later, Scott Welch, president of the Homebuilders Association of Kentucky, testified that upfront infrastructure costs are a major barrier in his projects, citing a $1 million pump station and road-widening and utility relocation costs as examples, and said an infrastructure fund would help get projects off the ground.

Transcript Highlights:

• That a project county agencies.
• individual projects. Thank you for that. individual projects. Thank you for that.
• what the actual project is. what the actual project is. Thank<00:49:18.280> you.
• These projects show a better path.
• projects show a better path. projects show a better path.

Bills: SB3253, SB2401, SB3169, SB17, SB3014, SB3032, SB1432, SB2002, SB2972, SB3247

Keywords: conservation, endangered species, wildlife preservation, native birds, biodiversity, sanctuary, nonprofit, DLNR, agricultural district, land use, chapter 195D, chapter 205, chapter 42F, state funding, public purpose, habitat restoration, predator-free sanctuary, ecosystem restoration, Zealandia, wildlife refuge

Summary: The Committee on Water and Land heard testimony on SB 5253 SD2 relating to conservation and SB 2401 relating to regional shoreline mitigation district, with the chair emphasizing short testimony limits and the need to finish before session. On SB 5253, DLNR said it stood on its written testimony and answered questions about the bill’s proposed nonprofit endangered species sanctuary. Members asked whether existing entities or agreements, such as land trusts, private landowners, and DLNR safe harbor agreements, could accomplish similar conservation goals without creating a new entity. DLNR said similar work already exists, but it was not aware of a comparable sanctuary model in the state. A member also questioned language suggesting for-profit businesses in the sanctuary, and DLNR said the intent appeared to be sales of outreach or similar materials, though it agreed that such activities could be handled by a nonprofit. The bulk of the hearing focused on SB 2401, which would create a regional shoreline adaptation/mitigation framework. The Department of the Attorney General said it had concerns about inconsistent use of the terms “mitigation” and “adaptation,” warning of possible title-subject issues. DLNR said it was neutral on the terminology and more concerned with the substance, and noted that the bill would not waive permits; any plan would still require environmental review and applicable state and county permits. DLNR also supported OHA’s recommendation to consider impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during regional planning, and said the bill’s language on temporary shoreline protection measures could help address the gap between emergency permits and longer-term planning while avoiding a hardening-only approach. The Office of Planning supported the regional planning concept but noted it is not a regulatory agency and would need to work with DLNR and the Land Board. OHA supported the bill’s planning-based approach but recommended amendments to require assessment of impacts on Native Hawaiian traditional and customary practices during plan development and to clarify that environmental review would still apply at the project level. Testifiers from the Ka‘anapali Steering Committee strongly supported the bill, saying it would provide a regional framework for ongoing erosion problems while preserving full regulatory authority and normal permitting, and they proposed amendments to standardize terminology, create a limited pathway for temporary shoreline protection, and address ownership and maintenance responsibilities. Members discussed the meaning of “mitigation” versus “adaptation,” the scope of shoreline hardening, and whether the bill would help the legislature take a broader, more holistic view of shoreline decisions. No votes or final actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• <03:53:15.760> those construction projects. those construction projects. those construction
• <03:53:19.279> any construction projects um didn't have any construction projects um didn't
• Um so number one construction project.
• a construction project would be at<04:04:43.680> 30%.
• . project. project.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard HB 1334, which would remove the Education Freedom Account scholarship organization’s authority to approve “any other educational expense” under the EFA statute. The prime sponsor, Representative Porchelli, said the bill would narrow the law to the specifically listed qualifying expenses, avoid broad interpretation, and shift any questions to the Department of Education or the legislative oversight committee. In response to questions, she said she did not think the open-ended category had been needed and that the statute already clearly lists allowable expenses. A representative of the Children’s Scholarship Fund testified in opposition, saying the category is used rarely but is important for unusual cases, especially students with special needs, and that removing it could create unintended consequences. After testimony, the chair closed the hearing on HB 1334. The committee then heard HB 1513, which would move several EFA reporting and oversight requirements from administrative rules and the contract with the Children’s Scholarship Fund into statute. Representative Porchelli said the bill would consolidate existing requirements on timely responses to oversight requests, publication of expense reports by category and provider, and transmission of eligibility and enrollment data to the Department of Education. She described the bill as mostly a clarification and transparency measure rather than a substantive policy change. Members asked about the meaning of “timely access,” the 45-day deadline, whether the contract already covered these duties, and whether the scholarship organization had ever failed to comply. The Children’s Scholarship Fund said it had generally met the 45-day deadline, had not knowingly refused information requests, and that the quarterly reporting requirement could add cost; the sponsor said the DOE had provided guidance and was neutral. The hearing on HB 1513 was then closed. Finally, the committee heard HB 1256, which would repeal the state librarian’s authority to award scholarships for graduate library school attendance at American Library Association-accredited schools. Representative Drago said the law was unnecessary because the state does not currently have a state librarian, scholarships are not typically granted by statute, and he objected to the ALA accreditation requirement and what he described as the association’s political advocacy. In questions, he clarified that the bill targets the accreditation requirement rather than a specific school and said he did not think the state should direct taxpayer-funded scholarships toward ALA-accredited programs. A member raised First Amendment concerns, but the sponsor said the issue was not speech itself, only the use of taxpayer dollars and state law to support that direction. The transcript cuts off before any vote or final action on HB 1256.

Transcript Highlights:

• If we're going to project is undertaken.
• . exception for individual projects.
• Thank you. no cap on projects. Designated downtowns no cap on projects.
• certain projects get a want or make certain projects get a permit<00:57:34.240> while<00:57:34.559
• >> Madam Speaker, in my region's projects >> Madam Speaker, in my region's projects

Keywords: 926, house, all

Summary: The House returned to Senate Bill 325 on regional planning and Act 250 tier jurisdiction and first took up Representative Charlton’s amendment to extend the interim housing exemptions in tier one areas from 2028 to 2030. Charlton argued the change would better align the exemptions with the state’s 2030 housing targets and give rural communities and smaller developers more realistic time to plan and build. Committee members opposing the amendment said the exemptions would no longer be needed once 1A and 1B areas are established, and Ways and Means reported an unfavorable straw poll. After debate, the House rejected the amendment by roll call, 66-76. During debate, members discussed whether the extension would help or hinder housing production, with supporters emphasizing rural Vermont, achievable timelines, and the need for certainty for developers, while opponents stressed that the temporary exemptions were meant to bridge the transition to the new tier system. The House also heard questions about whether any communities had actually adopted 1A or 1B status yet, and it was noted that future land use maps were not yet complete. The chamber then moved to a second amendment from Representative Dobervich, which would extend certain interim Act 250 exemptions for designated village centers and nearby areas through January 1, 2031, including projects of 50 units or fewer or mixed-income/mixed-use projects meeting specified infrastructure criteria, with municipal bodies able to opt out. Dobervich said the proposal would expand access to the interim exemptions for rural communities that lack permanent zoning or subdivision bylaws but otherwise meet the criteria, helping more towns build housing in already developed areas. Opponents argued the amendment could allow too much development in small towns without local review and questioned how many municipalities would actually qualify. The debate continued with members discussing the relationship between Act 181, the temporary exemptions, and the ongoing work to create future land use maps and tier designations.

Transcript Highlights:

• ,<00:09:38.000> next Toward the end of our project, next Toward the end of our project, next
• Under project goals and So, next.
• Well, it was my understanding that when they did the population projection, they did the projections
• <00:48:06.800> that That would reduce We projected that That would reduce We projected that
• have so many projects in my head. have so many projects in my head.

Bills: SR185, HB2452, HB2329, HB2272, HB2273, HB2335, HB1656, HB2207, HB2289, HB1854, HB2581, HB20, HB2296, HB1707, HB2297, HB1890, HB2241, HB2474, HB1688, HB2546, HB1574, HB1546, HB2218, HB1163, HB1514, HB1749, HB2385, HB1576, HB1974, HB2022, HB1973, HB2005, HB1894, HB1515, HB1718, HB1591, HB2475, HB1721, HB1864, HB1946, HB1920

Keywords: Department of Education, capital improvement program, performance audit, infrastructure, transparency, state bonds, general obligation bonds, GO bonds, bond authorization, state debt limit, constitutional debt limit, Article VII Section 13, Hawaii bonds, state borrowing, public finance, capital improvement projects, supplemental appropriations, judiciary appropriations, refunding bonds, reimbursable bonds

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:43:36.200> for Implement strategies and projects for Implement strategies and projects
• like all these different projects like all these different projects that'll<00:49:43.720> Harden
• Well, it would definitely make the project financeable.
• <01:27:36.159> the simple and so the the the project the simple and so the the the project
• <01:29:43.679> right casino to the plan to the project right casino to the plan to the project

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered three measures on the 1 p.m. agenda. SB 817, relating to out-of-state offices, drew support from DBEDT and several community groups, with questions focused on the requested funding, staffing level, whether the office would expand broadly, and whether the Philippines was being singled out. SB 1578, relating to international affairs, received support from DBEDT and the Attorney General, with the chair noting the bill was intended to help DBEDT analyze Hawaii’s international partnerships and plan next steps. SB 1639, establishing Hawaii Beach Day, had limited testimony and was moved along without substantive debate. SB 582, relating to DBEDT, was also heard with support from state agencies and a few individuals, and was described as a vehicle for organizational and funding changes affecting the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts, including moving some positions and programming to general funds and narrowing the works-of-art special fund's uses. The committees then took up recommendations. All three measures were advanced with amendments: SB 817 was amended to include technical changes and a defective effective date of July 1, 2025; SB 1578 was amended to address the Attorney General’s concerns, make the commission subject to Senate confirmation, and add technical changes and a defective date; and SB 582 was amended to incorporate provisions from SB 1577, clarify SFCA authority over performing arts, shift SFCA positions and programming to general funds, restrict the works-of-art special fund, and add a defective date. Each committee voted to adopt the chair’s recommendations, with no reservations or no votes noted in the Transportation and Culture and the Arts committee and only Senator Dela Cruz voting no on SB 817 there; in the Economic Development and Tourism committee, SB 817 passed with Senator Kim in reservation and Senator Awa voting no, while SB 1578 and SB 582 passed with Senator Awa voting no. The later 10:00 a.m. agenda hearing focused on SB 1589, relating to the stadium development special fund, and SB 1629, relating to taxation. On SB 1589, the Attorney General asked for clarification of section 3, particularly the proviso about remaining monies lapsing to the general fund if the New Aloha Stadium Entertainment District is terminated before completion; the interim stadium manager explained the bill would allow spending of $49.5 million already in the special fund for consultant, construction management, quality assurance, and contingency costs. On SB 1629, testimony was sharply divided: supporters, including film industry and business representatives, said the measure would support local film production, restore prior GET treatment, and help attract studio development; opponents argued the bill was vague, overly favorable to a specific project, and lacked oversight and accountability. The hearing ended with extensive questioning about whether the bill was effectively tailored to a particular studio project and how it related to other film tax credit measures, but no final committee action on SB 1589 or SB 1629 was included in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um however, uh projects in the past.
• sand moving project in quite some time. sand moving project in quite some time.
• <00:53:43.200> I help us move this project forward. I help us move this project forward.
• As a bring this project to completion.
• Um, and project forward more quickly.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several shoreline easement resolutions and a water-supply study resolution. For the easement measures, the Department of Land and Natural Resources supported each item, and testimony also came from affected landowners and community members. Members asked about why some easements were granted gratis to public agencies, with DLNR explaining that those cases involved public infrastructure such as stormwater management and did not require bonds or rent. For private properties, DLNR described the standard process of monthly rent during the legislative approval gap, followed by a one-time appraised payment for a 25-year easement once the appraisal is completed. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on shoreline erosion and whether hardened shoreline structures or seawalls were contributing to beach loss. On one measure, DLNR explained that a large sandbag shoreline structure was tied to a nearby boat harbor that had altered sand movement over time, causing flanking erosion on adjacent unarmored property. On another, DLNR said a wall built under a valid 1960s permit was originally a boundary or landscaping wall, but now functions as a seawall as the shoreline has migrated landward. Members raised concerns about fairness, public beach access, and whether adjacent owners should share costs, and DLNR responded that shoreline matters are handled parcel by parcel under existing statute. The committee also heard support for a resolution creating a task force or study on desalination. DLNR’s Commission on Water Resource Management supported the intent but asked for more time to complete a comprehensive report, noting the work would require substantial staffing and coordination. The Board of Water Supply and CARES also testified in support, with CARES emphasizing future water-supply needs, cultural and historic preservation concerns, and the importance of coordinating with other agencies. DLNR said it would rely on existing studies and work with county agencies and the Department of Health. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• so virtually flat compared to the revised current-year projections.
• flat compared to the revised current year projections.
• It sounded like you were projecting increased revenue, or there's—the projections are that there is increased
• It sounded like you were projecting increased revenue or, or there's, the projections are that there
• It's a projection that continues to evolve, but because there are projected out-year deficits, in our

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So each project officer, and that's common in federal grants, there's a project officer assigned to your
• <00:15:32.639> or exciting to to see the five projects or exciting to to see the five projects
• 16:04.800> that's<00:16:05.199> common project officer and that's that's common project
• There's a project in federal grants.
• <00:16:16.160> officer So CMS will have a project officer So CMS will have a project officer

Keywords: 00:00:20 - Call to Order/Roll Call 00:02:00 - Update on Rural Health Transformation Program 00:29:20 - Discussion of 26RS HB 134 00:36:35 - Roll Call Vote on 26RS HB 134 00:37:41 - Consideration of Referred Administrative Regulations 01:09:44 - Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Health Services Committee met to receive an update from Cabinet for Health and Family Services Secretary Steven Stack on Kentucky’s Rural Health Transformation Grant. He explained that all 50 states applied and were awarded funding, and Kentucky received about $212.9 million over five years, with the first year treated as a nine-month period. He emphasized that the award is a cooperative agreement with CMS, is not Medicaid funding, cannot be used to supplant existing funds, and is limited to the five areas approved in Kentucky’s application. He also said the state must submit a revised budget before major spending begins, and that CMS could claw back money if performance metrics are not met. Secretary Stack outlined the five focus areas: maternal health, mental health, oral health, emergency medical services, and chronic disease prevention/management, especially obesity and diabetes. He described possible approaches such as expanding behavioral health crisis stabilization models like EMPath, using teledentistry and mobile services, strengthening EMS staffing and treat-in-place options, and building healthier nutrition and activity supports. He said the application was developed quickly with broad stakeholder input and that the state plans to work with universities, nonprofits, and other partners through procurement and other formal processes. He also noted the program will be overseen by the public health department, with Commissioner John Langfeld leading the effort. Committee members asked about the grant timeline, the split between formula and competitive funding, the role of certificate of need, and whether new laws or regulations would be needed. Stack said the state believes it can implement the approved projects under current law, though some broader policy issues such as certificate of need were not included because they would be risky to change within the grant timeline. Members also asked how stakeholders can submit ideas; Stack pointed them to the public website and contact email, saying additional partner information will be posted soon. The committee did not take any formal vote or action during this discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• Honestly, we had a bunch of different projections there.
• Continued to show a decline from what the agency was projecting.
• Chip caseloads are projected to increase by 34% in 26 and 4.5%.
• This is why the projection projected utilization.
• So looking at the projected utilization.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• WE WALKED THROUGH THE PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE UNDERWAY AND THESE ARE MULTI YEAR PROJECTS AND WE REVIEWED
• CLOUD MODERNIZATION, AND WE SPOKE ABOUT SINGLE YEAR PROJECTS AND MULTIYEAR PROJECTS AND SINGLE VENDOR
• IT WILL ALL FOCUS AROUND PROCUREMENT AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME FUNDING AND WE WILL
• I WILL GUARANTEE THAT EVERY PROJECT THAT OUR AGENCY IS ASKED TO SPEND ON WILL HELP SOMEONE.
• UNDERSTAND HOW THAT HOW THE PROJECT WAS DEFINED WHEN IT STARTED, WHAT DOES THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT LOOKS

Transcript Highlights:

• some of the challenges that the Department of Transportation was facing in staffing and funding for projects
• billion dollars in supplemental funds above our normal budget that the commission has awarded, and projects
• into that project.
• of our projects and the capacity<00:20:29.440> program.
• funds to to award a project. funds to to award a project.

Keywords: Highways and Transportation - Room 216, 18 February, 2026; 10:30 AM, 925, all

Summary: The committee heard from Brad White, head of the Mississippi Department of Transportation, as part of his confirmation process. White said the department has improved staffing and funding over the last four years, citing support from the legislature, supplemental appropriations, ARPA funds, and fuel tax adjustments. He emphasized that MDOT is still rebuilding its engineering and maintenance workforce and needs continued salary flexibility to remain competitive and respond to disasters. A major portion of the discussion focused on MDOT’s response to the recent severe ice storm. Several senators questioned whether the response was adequate and whether district lines, coordination with local governments, and emergency task-force planning should be changed. White said the storm was unusually severe, with freezing rain, flash-freeze conditions, widespread power outages, and more than 15,000 miles of highway impacted. He said MDOT crews were spread thin, but still logged more than 26,000 man-hours, worked with law enforcement and rescue units, and were aided by about 400 employees in the affected area plus 500 others from other regions. He said the department is reviewing lessons learned and expects winter-storm response to change going forward. Senators also asked about comparisons with Tennessee and whether the storm response was a funding issue. White said it was not primarily a money problem, but that Mississippi’s budget and weather patterns differ from neighboring states, making stockpiling materials less practical. He said cities and counties could help in emergencies if coordinated with MDOT, and he supported properly funding agencies such as MDOT, MEMA, the National Guard, and public safety. Another senator raised long-delayed road projects, including Highway 61 and the Port Gibson bypass, and White said the capacity program remains active and that emergency response had not stopped project work. The committee then considered several appointments to the Mississippi Motor Vehicle Commission and related boards. Kenneth Jeffrey Smith of Pontotoc, William J. Van Deender, and Ranatada Tracy McGawan of Jackson were each introduced, praised, and recommended by motion. The committee voted unanimously to advise and consent on each nomination, with no opposition recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those three criteria are the ones we use in our five project grants.
• Those three criteria are the ones we use in our five project grants.
• So many of the project grants, most of the project grants that we award are for free activities.
• >> So we many of the project grants, most of the project grants that we weren't are for free activities
• So that means that each district should have got 79 projects.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a series of projects that are in current progress.
• Then you'll see a series of projects. These tend to be kind of special projects.
• A couple of projects, including doing a deep dive kind of postmortem on the Mascaro school district project
• How have we... progressed on that project. Mr.
• I am an analyst For communications and the lead on the report cards project.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the cost to replace it was a $1 billion project.
• We have some nascent potable projects that are getting started.
• One is the tipping fees. projects that are getting started.
• So we've been collaborating on the project with the SBCW and the BILIA, and the project is largely funded
• We started this project with Water Research Foundation and the State Water Board.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Biotechnology and Medical Technology held an informational hearing on the role of biotechnology industries in wastewater treatment, hosted at Bakar Labs on the UC Berkeley campus. Opening remarks emphasized California’s water scarcity, the rising cost of wastewater infrastructure, and the need to reuse and clean contaminated water. Committee members framed the hearing as a look at both current treatment challenges and emerging technologies that could improve water quality, affordability, and resilience over time. The first panel focused on statewide wastewater challenges. BACWA Executive Director Laurie Fono described wastewater plants as part of a broader circular economy, noting their roles in recycled water, environmental enhancement, biosolids management, carbon sequestration, and renewable energy generation. She highlighted major challenges including aging 1970s-era infrastructure, nutrient reduction mandates, sea level rise, evolving regulations, and PFAS source control. She said Bay Area agencies face about $11 billion in nutrient reduction costs, with rate increases, state revolving funds, WIFIA loans, and bonds as the main financing tools. Members asked about regional differences, energy revenue opportunities, smaller decentralized plants, and agricultural collaboration. The second panel featured researchers and lab experts discussing biotechnology solutions. Lawrence Berkeley National Lab’s Dr. Romine Chakarvati described using microbial communities and machine learning to help break down PFAS and treat produced water. CEL Analytical’s Dr. Yigi Dearborn explained pathogen testing for direct potable reuse, wastewater monitoring, and the need for larger sample volumes and more funding to validate methods for viruses and protozoa. Stanford’s Dr. Chunhung-Shin presented an anaerobic membrane system that turns domestic wastewater into clean water and energy with less biosolids and lower operating costs. Committee members asked about AI, assay development, scaling technologies, and funding priorities. Public comment from the California Association of Sanitation Agencies stressed the need to balance scalability, reliability, and affordability, and the hearing adjourned without any formal vote or action.

Transcript Highlights:

• And that's a significant enhancement to most of your projects.
• So, in this case, I'm assuming a $5 million project.
• So if you need $5 million for a project, you're going to get $5 million for the project.
• fund their project.
• Design, as a phase of a project, is eligible as a public project to stand on its own.

Transcript Highlights:

• And then we had the same with the document scanning project, which will be wrapped up here this biennium
• We've established grants and loans to some of the most important projects within the state.
• So, you know, we can talk about individual projects if some, if you would like, but some of the, you
• Just Well Springs Hydro, another project, but just a number of really good projects.
• Hydro, another project, but just a number of really good projects.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 2025, the Department of Veterans Affairs appropriation. Representative O’Brien explained the House changes, including funding for a restored Veterans Benefits Specialist FTE, salary equity adjustments for the commissioner and veterans service officers, one-time funding for veteran homelessness services, carryover authority for the Fargo Fisher House, and a highly rural transportation grants program. Members also discussed the commissioner’s prior salary increase and the use of transportation grant funds for administrative costs, as well as the status of the Fisher House project. The committee adopted amendment 25.092.0203 and then gave SB 2025 a do pass recommendation as amended, with Representative O’Brien as carrier. The committee then considered Senate Bill 2307, the library bill. Members debated a proposed amendment that would have removed the fiscal note, but several members objected on policy and process grounds, citing constitutional concerns, potential costs to counties and state’s attorneys, and the fact that the bill had not been heard as a full policy hearing. The amendment failed 4-19. The committee then voted do not pass on SB 2307 as introduced, and Representative Murphy was named carrier. The committee also briefly discussed House Bill 2188 on the Clean Sustainable Energy Authority. Representative Bosch described the program’s grant and low-interest loan authority and the Senate’s reduced funding levels. The committee amended the bill to restore the Senate funding amounts in Section 3, then passed the bill as amended, with Representative Kempenich carrying it. Finally, the committee considered two rural development bills and chose Senate Bill 2097, the rural endowment fund bill, for do not pass while advancing House Bill 2390, which uses regional councils to distribute rural development grants. The committee amended HB 2390 to lower the population threshold from 4,500 to 3,000, kept the 50% set-aside for communities under 1,500, and then passed the bill as amended, with Representative Mitskog as carrier.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the second with Tech is the Tucker-Chiller project, valued at $1.8 million.
• This is $500,000, and they'll use plant funds for this project.
• Item C, you have one alternative delivery method project for your review this month.
• They estimate the total cost for this project to be $75.5 million, using capital reserves.
• This is the alternative delivery project. Members, do you have any questions on C1?

Summary: The committee first considered an $88,000 used tire program contract for District 4 with LTR Intermediate Holdings. Senators raised concerns that the tire district’s revised business plan had not yet been approved and that the contract could worsen cash flow before funding was confirmed. Questions were also raised about procurement language in the RFP that excluded bidders under corrective action plans. After discussion, a motion was made and approved to hold the contract until next month so the tire board could appear and answer questions. Members then reviewed a large slate of methods of finance, alternative delivery projects, and discretionary grants. These included capital projects at ASU Mid-South, Arkansas Tech, Ozarka, UA Fayetteville, UA Little Rock, UAMS, and UCA; a new UCA multi-purpose arena project estimated at $75.5 million; and DHS and Department of Health grants for aging services, substance abuse prevention, mental health, nutrition, hearing-loss follow-up, HIV services, and rural hospital quality improvement. All of these items were reviewed without objection. The committee also heard a ratification request from UAMS for a Family and Medical Leave Act outsourcing contract with FMLA Source. UAMS said an amendment had been prepared but never submitted for review, and payments continued after expiration; members expressed frustration and asked UAMS to review whether other contracts had similarly lapsed. The committee then reviewed numerous construction-related, intergovernmental, out-of-state, and in-state contracts, including airport economic impact study work, parking guidance technology at the University of Arkansas, veteran nursing services, and multiple DHS service contracts. Most items were reviewed without objection, and the meeting adjourned after reports of routine contract amendments and minor contracts were presented for information.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're now projecting individual income tax receipts to be 1.9% more than we projected in November.
• 1.9% more than we projected in November. 1.9% more than we projected in November.
• So, our projected balance in 2829 would flip to a projected shortfall. Start.
• So, our projected balance in 2829 would flip to a projected shortfall.
• Republicans canled clean power projects. Republicans canled clean power projects.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If a school board needs to do a health and safety project over $100,000, qualifying projects fall into
• If a school board needs to do a health and safety project over $100,000, qualifying projects fall into
• If a school board needs to do a health and safety project over $100,000, qualifying projects fall into
• If a school board needs to do a health and safety project over $100,000, qualifying projects fall into
• Called the technology levy or the capital projects levy, which is on line 29 of Ms.

Keywords: 1183, house