Transcript Highlights:

• with an average Grant $487 businesses with an average Grant size<00:05:26.080> of<00:05:26.440
• She received a $31,000 grant. You can see she used that grant to wrap her vehicle.
• <00:26:23.919> going it like the 65 million Grant going it like the 65 million Grant going
• money was used uh by the grant money was used uh by the grant and<00:26:59.399> so<00:26:
• On the grant side of things, we received 8,815 applications. We were able to give out 45 grants.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , the mental health block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another
• , the mental health block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another
• , the mental health block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another
• , the mental health block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another
• , the mental health block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another block grant, ARPA grant, um, the another

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• prevention project research grant prevention project research grant $500,000<00:08:36.399> in
• , behavioral health grants, behavioral health grants, uh,<00:09:13.200> one-time<00:09:13.600
• Same with the MA mobile crisis grants, the mental health grants for health care professionals.
• Nman said, grants are what you decide to grant to them.
• <01:01:42.079> to grants are what you decide to grant to grants are what you decide to grant

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• legislature has helped with our grant legislature has helped with our grant writer<00:10:42.399>
• AMS letting us know that three grants AMS letting us know that three grants are<00:20:17.760>
• We have our grant writer here. She is preparing grants and grants and grants.
• We have our grant writer here. She is preparing grants and grants and grants.
• preparing grants and grants and grants. preparing grants and grants and grants.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint informational briefing focused on how federal policy changes, tariffs, funding cuts, the federal shutdown, and delays in the farm bill are affecting Hawaii agriculture and food access. Opening remarks emphasized Hawaii’s heavy dependence on imported food and farm inputs, the state’s vulnerability to disruptions in USDA services, and the need for stronger state, county, and community coordination. Speakers also noted that immigration enforcement and broader global supply-chain pressures can affect local farm labor, production, and food availability. Sharon Herd, chair of the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, described both positive and negative federal impacts. She said Hawaii has benefited from some recurring grants and a large new $8.8 million federal grant, but also reported about $22 million in losses from suspended or terminated grants, including farm-to-school and water-related projects. She said some USDA programs, such as microgrants for food security and FISMIP, are currently suspended, while the specialty crop block grant remains active. She also said Hawaii farms declined from 7,328 to 6,569 between the 2017 and 2022 censuses and argued the state cannot rely on imports alone to feed its people. Amanda Shaw of Agriculture Stewardship Hawaii presented findings from federal funding cut reports. She said the first report, in March, identified about $88 million in potential cuts, and the newer report found $64.7 million in confirmed cuts and about $175 million in potential cuts. She said federal shifts are creating uncertainty for farmers, food-system organizations, and school and community food programs, and noted that 4,000 to 5,000 Hawaii farmers could receive less money because of changes to payment-factor provisions for socially disadvantaged farmers. She also said Hawaii has lost 18% of local USDA staff since September 2024, with possible further national reductions expected. No votes were taken; the meeting was informational only, and the chair noted that any legal questions, including the reported SNAP changes, would be for the Judiciary Committee to assess later.

Transcript Highlights:

• lines here for children's museum grants. lines here for children's museum grants.
• grant organizations named within that. grant organizations named within that.
• And then youth literary grants at $250,000 per year, and youth poet laureate grants at $100,000 in the
• <00:32:09.919> I'm of Independent as a named grant. I'm of Independent as a named grant.
• to do under that grant.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• of grants within that program called special focus grants.
• of grants within that program called special focus grants.
• <00:31:36.480> and prepared meals food relief grants and prepared meals food relief grants
• Line 544 is to convert the American Indian health special emphasis grants from competitive grants to
• that largely by winning federal grants. that largely by winning federal grants.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the state grant. the state grant.
• we did not address the state grant we did not address the state grant shortfall,<00:09:56.560>
• So, in the Fostering Independence grant.
• fix anything with the state grant fix anything with the state grant program. program. program.
• And getting all of the grant programs.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The House first took up a resolution commemorating Peace Officer Memorial Day and Police Week in Minnesota. Members read a series of “whereas” clauses honoring fallen peace officers, including the addition of three names to the Minnesota Law Enforcement Memorial Honor Roll, and recognizing the service of the state’s more than 10,000 peace officers. The resolution was adopted without objection. The chamber then moved to conference committee reports and calendar actions, including a Rules and Legislative Administration report placing several bills on the calendar for the next day. The main substantive item was the conference committee report on House File 4252, the higher education finance and policy bill. Supporters said the bill included $3 million for identity verification systems to combat enrollment fraud or “ghost students,” $2.7 million to cover a shortfall in the Fostering Independence grant program for foster youth, and $5,000 for tree replacement at Bemidji State University. They also noted the bill did not address the larger state grant shortfall, which several members described as a structural problem. During debate, supporters emphasized the need to stop enrollment fraud and protect foster students’ access to higher education, while also praising the conference committee process and public deliberations. Opponents criticized the bill for failing to fix the state grant deficit and argued that Minnesota students were not being prioritized. After discussion, the House adopted the conference committee report, gave the bill its third reading, and then repassed House File 4252 as amended by conference by a vote of 101 yeas to 33 nays.

Transcript Highlights:

• I am concerned about this next grant, too. I am concerned about this next grant, too.
• We have some of those grants open right now, and we are having some issues with those grants, too, and
• We have some of those grants open right now, and we are having some issues with those grants, too, and
• We have some of those grants open right now, and we are having some issues with those grants, too, and
• Grant opportunity from that Grant Grant opportunity from that Grant award<01:46:34.440> uh

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We have Senator Grant Hauschild online, appearing from Hermantown, Minnesota, and Ann Johnson Stewart
• program funding and only includes grants program funding and only includes the<00:08:08.560> 5
• unit this also includes the dnr's grant unit this also includes emerging<00:15:12.279> issues
• bill uh does to administer the grants bill uh does to administer the grants and<00:21:08.080>
• Grant Grant cycle<00:21:24.799> that<00:21:24.960> they're<00:21:25.080> going<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• grants grants and<00:21:30.039> that's<00:21:30.279> basically<00:21:30.679> a<
• <00:22:03.039> and the federal capitalization grants and the federal capitalization grants
• contaminants program and this is a grant contaminants program and this is a grant program<00:29:
• of grants after that is uncertain.
• the community they may qualify for grant the community they may qualify for grant funding<00:38:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we are serving 93 California community college campuses today. 80 are grant funded, 13 were not grant
• , on our Student Success Completion Grant, and on Cal Grant.
• IMLS also terminated grants to multiple states.
• , which is a significant federal grant.
• So the grant, the annual grant, was terminated April 1st, and they rescinded the. termination on May

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So for the grant that Ulup Pona mentioned, the $2.89 million grant, she has two positions.
• best of your knowledge, how many grants best of your knowledge, how many grants are<00:24:53.360
• <00:24:55.360> were are available and how many grants were are available and how many grants
• <00:25:42.000> that reauthorizing a lot of the grants that reauthorizing a lot of the grants
• So for the grant that uh Ulup grant.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several agriculture-related bills. HB 1602 HD1 drew support from the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, the Ulupono Initiative, and others, with testimony emphasizing the value of a dedicated grant writer who had secured nearly $9 million in federal funds and was pursuing additional grants. Members discussed how much time grant applications take and how the position helps position projects for implementation. The committee then moved on without objection. HB 1832, relating to aquaculture, received support from state agencies and industry groups, with one individual opposed. HB 1707 HD1, relating to agriculture, also drew broad support. A committee question focused on the bill’s definition of “necessary supplies,” and the Hawaii Farm Bureau said the language was broad enough to cover the inputs farmers need, including transportation-related costs, and would help reduce production costs and food prices. HB 2155 HD1, relating to agricultural statistics, prompted testimony in support of better data collection to help Hawaii compete for federal agriculture funding. The Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity explained that its role would focus on production, import, and export data, distinct from the scientific data collected by another unit, and said it wanted an electronic system tied to existing manifest and GIS tools to avoid duplicative clipboard-based collection. HB 1831 HD1, relating to agricultural lands, was heard with support and no questions. HB 1650 HD1, relating to environmental assessments, drew opposition from several individuals who argued it would weaken environmental protections and resident input; no action was taken. The committee then heard HB 1652 HD1, relating to storm water management systems. The engineering industry supported clarifying that low-risk green stormwater infrastructure such as rain gardens, bioswales, and permeable pavement should not be treated like detention or retention ponds subject to fencing and other safety requirements. Opponents, including family members affected by a drowning and other residents, argued the bill would weaken Act 281’s safety protections and increase liability. The Hawaii Farm Bureau questioned whether agricultural water infrastructure should be exempted from the fencing requirements and said the costs would vary by system, but the committee did not take final action during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And you can see a number of other grant programs. mitigation program uh that is Grants to mitigation
• <00:28:43.640> to different agencies uh grants to different agencies uh grants to political
• <00:29:30.640> to um and then you can see two grants to um and then you can see two grants
• and clean water grants.
• and clean water grants.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Capital Investment Committee met on January 16 for an informational overview on state bonding and capital investment. House Research analyst Chelsea Griffin and House Fiscal analyst Andrew Lee explained the nonpartisan roles of their offices and then walked members through the basics of Minnesota bonding: how bonds are issued and repaid, how they are categorized, and the main legal authorities governing state general obligation bonds, including the state constitution, Minnesota statutes, and federal tax law. Griffin emphasized that state GO bond proceeds must be used for a public purpose, for a purpose authorized in the constitution, as specifically described in law, and must mature within 20 years. She also noted that state GO bonding is typically originated in the House and that capital projects financed with state GO bonds generally require a three-fifths vote in each chamber. The presentation also covered practical limits and requirements on bonding projects, including the distinction between state and local GO bonding, the role of bond counsel, restrictions on bond-financed property, the prohibition on reimbursing already-paid costs, and the full funding and non-state match requirements. In response to member questions, Griffin clarified that the full funding requirement in section 16A.502 means a project must be fully funded before the appropriation is available, while section 16A.86 reflects an expectation that local governments provide about half the financing for local projects, though the legislature can choose to fund more than half or waive a local match. She also said she did not believe a bill to make the 50 percent match requirement statutory passed last session. Lee then began a spreadsheet-based overview of the 2023 capital budget laws, explaining how capital investment spreadsheets are organized and how different fund types appear in the documents. He highlighted examples such as University of Minnesota projects funded with GO bonds and Minnesota State projects using user financing, where the system contributes a share of project costs from non-state sources such as tuition or system revenues. The committee did not take any votes or formal actions during this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, maybe urging them to go get federal grants, that might make more sense.
• Um, maybe urging them to go get federal grants, that might make more sense.
• Um, maybe urging them to go get federal grants, that might make more sense.
• Um, maybe urging them to go get federal grants, that might make more sense.
• Um, maybe urging them to go get federal grants, that might make more sense.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint AEN-HRE hearing focused on HCR 130, HD1, which urges increased and sustained funding for the island invasive species committees and the Hawaii Ant Lab within the University of Hawaii’s Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit. The Department of Agriculture said it supported the intent and noted that ISC funding flows through the Hawaii Invasive Species Council budget item via DLNR, while also describing ongoing collaboration with DLNR and efforts to support ant control work. Testifiers from CAPS, the University of Hawaii, the Oahu Invasive Species Committee, and CARES all supported the resolution, emphasizing that invasive species work is underfunded, that the island committees and Hawaii Ant Lab do critical control, research, outreach, and eradication work, and that sustained resources are needed to plan effectively and respond to priority pests such as little fire ant, coconut rhinoceros beetle, and coqui frog. A lengthy exchange followed over whether the resolution was meaningful, since it would be urging the state to fund work the Legislature itself controls. Several members argued that a resolution alone has no legal effect and that funding should come through bills and appropriations instead. In response, the Department of Agriculture said its top biosecurity needs are personnel and chemicals, and noted it is building up its plant quarantine and plant pest control divisions with prior funding and HB 427. Oahu Invasive Species Committee representatives said they rely heavily on Hawaii Invasive Species Council grants, have limited soft funding, and need more stable resources; they also pointed to annual reports and prior testimony as documentation of their work. After a brief recess, the chairs announced they would pass the resolution with amendments to make it more relevant. The amendments changed the title and text to urge the counties, Congress, and other relevant agencies—not the state alone—to provide increased and sustained funding, and added language urging all of those bodies to seek federal grants. The AEN committee then voted to pass HCR 130, HD1, as amended, and the HRE committee also voted to pass it with amendments. The motion was adopted in both committees.

Transcript Highlights:

• CSBG is more than a grant.
• Currently, none of our other grants cover the personnel costs for essential functions like grant writing
• We would have no grant writers without CSBG.
• I just want to emphasize CSBG again is more than a grant.
• I just want to emphasize CSBG, again, is more than a grant.

Summary: The Senate and Assembly Human Services Committees held a special oversight hearing on California’s 2026-27 Community Services Block Grant (CSBG) state plan, a federal anti-poverty funding stream. Committee members opened by citing statewide poverty and homelessness data and said the hearing was meant to review how CSBG dollars are used, how local agencies respond to community needs, and how the state is preparing for possible federal funding cuts. Jason Wimbley of the Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) explained that California’s CSBG network works through 60 organizations in 58 counties, serving about 1.5 million low-income Californians in 2023, and that the state received $68.4 million in federal CSBG funds in fiscal year 2025. He described the program as flexible funding used for housing, employment, education, food, health, transportation, and emergency response, and noted that the federal administration had proposed eliminating CSBG, though the Senate Appropriations Committee had voted to fully fund it for the coming year. Representatives from the California Community Action Partnership Association and several CSBG-funded agencies described how the program supports local anti-poverty work and leverages other funding. CalCAPA emphasized local flexibility, workforce development, partnerships, and data systems such as ROMA, while also warning that agencies are preparing for possible reductions by tightening budgets, planning staffing contingencies, and seeking private foundation support. Agency witnesses from Contra Costa County, Northern California Indian Development Council, Proteus, and Sacred Heart Community Service described services including housing assistance, food distribution, utility help, employment training, youth programs, and culturally specific services for Native communities and migrant farmworkers. They repeatedly said CSBG is essential because it funds staffing and infrastructure that allow them to braid other grants and serve people who do not qualify for standard safety-net programs. Members also asked about the impact of federal staffing changes and the Los Angeles fires. Wimbley said federal layoffs had affected some CSD programs but not CSBG administration, and that the department coordinated disaster response with state agencies and used CSBG-funded supply distribution, food, water, clothing, and documentation support during the fires. Witnesses said they were preparing for possible future cuts by diversifying funding, reducing expenses, and considering service changes, while county officials warned that state and federal reductions could not be backfilled locally. During public comment, one speaker urged stronger oversight of community action agencies and raised concerns about transparency and compliance with state law. The chair then thanked the witnesses, emphasized the importance of CSBG for low-income seniors, youth, and people with disabilities, and adjourned the hearing without any votes or formal action taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are two potential grants: a matching grant and a low-income grant.
• They apply for the grant. They're awarded the grant.
• Many residents have applied for this grant.
• have to agree to the grant.
• the grant funds available.

Summary: The State Administration Budget Subcommittee heard presentations from the Department of Financial Services on the My Safe Florida Home program, the My Safe Florida Condominium Pilot, and the Florida PALM financial system replacement project. For My Safe Florida Home, Stephen Fielder explained the wind-mitigation grant program, including its inspection-first process, two-to-one matching grants for most homeowners, low-income exemptions from the match, and eligible improvements such as roofs, clips/straps, water barriers, and opening protection. He reported roughly 109,000 initial inspections, nearly 59,000 grants approved, 31,000 final inspections, 25,000 reimbursements, and about $240 million paid out through the end of 2024. Members asked about premium savings, contractor pricing, fraud, owner-builder eligibility, reimbursement timing, and whether the program should have a dedicated funding source; Fielder said the program is currently closed, more than 40,000 people have signed up for updates, and the office has seen some price-gouging and impersonation issues but no major fraud trend. The committee also discussed the new prioritization rules that took effect July 1, 2024, which direct grant awards by age and income. Fielder said the program used a survey of existing applicants to implement the new priority groups and that the first group was over age 60 and low-income. Members raised questions about how premium reductions are measured, whether insurance company changes or rising insured values affect the data, and whether the program can track long-term outcomes after reimbursement. Fielder said the office reports raw premium changes based on declarations pages, knows the insurer for participants, and has validated results with multiple insurers, but does not track homeowners after they leave the program or enforce continued insurance coverage. For the My Safe Florida Condo Pilot, Fielder said the program is modeled on the home program but uses association-level applications, a maximum grant of $175,000 per association, and a similar two-to-one match. He said the application window opened briefly in November and was closed quickly because available funding could be exhausted and the department is prohibited from creating a waiting list. He identified several needed statutory changes, including better distinguishing condos from single-family homes, adjusting roof requirements for flat concrete roofs, and revisiting the unanimous unit-owner vote requirement, which he said has been a major obstacle. Chair Lopez noted the pilot is intended to be a learning process and thanked DFS staff for identifying implementation issues. The final presentation covered Florida PALM, the state’s effort to replace the 40-year-old FLAIR accounting system with a PeopleSoft-based financial management system. Fielder and PALM Director Jimmy Cox said the project began in 2014, the state contracted with Accenture in 2018, cash management went live in 2021, and the project was paused in 2022 for legislative review and remediation. They said the system is expected to go live in 2026, possibly in July rather than January, and that the project has spent about $225 million to date, with a current-year budget of about $60.9 million and a projected next-year request of about $64 million. Members asked about cybersecurity, cloud hosting, project scope, and whether the system is unique to Florida; staff said the system is not Florida-specific, access is credentialed through agency identity management, and the cloud host location is confidential. After the presentations, Chair Lopez assigned members to work with specific agencies on budget review meetings, asked them to discuss agency structure, priorities, staffing, waste reduction, and other budget issues, and set a deadline to report findings in the first week of regular session. The meeting then adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• Heritage Fund grants. Um a performance Heritage Fund grants.
• For the audit, we reviewed all grant agreements, amendments to those grant agreements, and grant payments
• for 13 grants.
• grants and two single source grants. grants and two single source grants.
• So that would be like a CPL<01:42:40.800> grant. CPL grant. CPL grant.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Lessard-Sams Outdoor Heritage Council met on May 27, 2026, approved the January 7 minutes and the day’s agenda, and reported no conflicts of interest. The executive director gave staff updates, including introductions of new staff member Cara Castanza and DNR liaison Jason Co., both of whom were welcomed by the council. Members were also informed about three minor easement/conveyance matters in the packet, including a small Bowser easement impact with about $1,600 returned to the Outdoor Heritage Fund, a Minnesota Land Trust easement request involving a DNR trout stream easement, and an access easement revision in Itasca County. The council also noted several upcoming dedication events and a June field tour in southeast Minnesota beginning in Winona on June 16, with visits to Whitewater WMA, bluff prairie and stream sites, and a river segment if a boat is secured. A major agenda item was a legislative session recap on the Outdoor Heritage Fund portion of Senate File 2077, the omnibus Outdoor Heritage Fund, Legacy, and Lands bill. Staff reported that all council recommendations were incorporated into the bill, which passed both chambers on May 17 and was expected to be signed by the governor. The fiscal year 2027 Outdoor Heritage Fund recommendations covered 53 programs totaling about $188.9 million, with the February forecast increasing the appropriation slightly so the final total was about $191.16 million; eligible programs were proportionately increased. Staff also highlighted a few changes made during the legislative process, including adjustments to the Roso Lake rehabilitation phase three project, the conservation partners legacy grant language, and statutory provisions affecting the council. The recap also covered policy changes in the bill: a public member term limit of eight years, with a short vacancy exception and transition rules for current members; a revised executive director hiring process allowing the Legislative Coordinating Commission to provide support while preserving the council’s final hiring authority and permitting closed meetings for candidate discussions; and an extension of the Upper Mississippi River invasive carp deterrent design deadline to June 30, 2027. Members discussed the Roso Lake amendment at length, with Senator Lang and Representative Burkel explaining that the added delay and injunction-related language were intended to address local concerns and preserve the council’s process while litigation proceeds. The meeting ended without any additional formal action beyond receiving the updates and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first three were through a DOE grant, so we made application in October.
• The total for land grants in ASECIA would then be 2.2%.
• Another area where land grants are operating is economic development.
• We have one land grant that has a wastewater treatment facility.
• We have land grants that are developing affordable housing developments.

Transcript Highlights:

• So when a grant sunsets, so does the expertise and the resources that have been built through that grant
• We recommend setting a minimum grant amount.
• I was pushing a lot of federal grants at that point.
• Chair, to clarify, those proposals were not competitive grants; they were formula grants.
• That would be part of the grant proposal process, making it a competitive grant this round, as opposed

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We don't provide grants.
• grants.
• We're providing responsible grants.
• >> The grants go to the actual businesses, the borrowers.
• >> The grants go to the actual businesses, the borrowers.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 2581 was presented as a request for a $1 million state investment in Fortis Capital, a Minnesota nonprofit economic development lender. The bill was described as supporting entrepreneurship and wealth-building by expanding access to capital for businesses that are underserved by traditional lending, especially in rural areas, communities of color, immigrant communities, and low-wealth areas. Testifiers argued that conventional underwriting standards leave viable businesses without financing and that Fortis provides flexible gap financing to help deals close, complementing rather than replacing banks and CDFIs. Brian Smith, co-founder and CEO of Fortis Capital, said the organization was established in 2019 and has deployed 37 loans totaling over $4 million since 2021, leveraging an additional $29.5 million through partnerships. He said Fortis seeks to increase lending capacity, reduce risk in innovative capital structures, expand statewide partnerships, and accelerate small business growth and job creation. In response to questions, he said Fortis typically charges about 6.12% on average, has had two defaults, and operates as a revolving loan fund. He also explained that Fortis already participates in some Department of Employment and Economic Development programs, but is not eligible for certain grant programs because those grants go directly to borrowers. Committee members asked how the proposal fits with existing state economic development efforts and whether competitive grant programs exist for this kind of work. A DED representative said he would need more detail to compare the proposal to agency programs, though he mentioned the emerging entrepreneur loan program as a possible fit. Members also discussed broader concerns about direct appropriations versus competitive grants. No public testimony was offered. Chair Frasier closed by saying the bill addresses a real need and laid House File 2581 over for possible inclusion in a budget bill.