Transcript Highlights:

• These bonds are proven to unrated bonds and encourages flexibility.
• Those bonds still go through, right? We recognize.
• the length of the bond.
• It could be anything that is associated with a bond. ...was an example of a type of bonded project.
• So there is an open door if that bond ends and there is a new bond to replace it.

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on March 20, 2025, and first approved HB 4025, creating the Duke Farm Stewardship District in Lee County, on a 17-0 vote. The committee then advanced HJR 1215, which proposes a constitutional amendment to exempt agricultural tangible personal property from property tax, after extended debate about the fiscal impact on counties, especially rural and fiscally constrained ones; it passed 16-1. HB 411 also passed unanimously after an amendment, extending affordable housing tax exemption treatment to certain nonprofit projects on leased land, including Habitat for Humanity projects. The committee likewise approved CS/HB 669, allowing local governments to purchase certain unrated bonds, and CS/HB 4017, codifying the Vermont Drainage District charter in Charlotte County, both without opposition. The committee also approved HJR 1039, which would let the Legislature prevent assessed-value increases for homestead properties that are improved to mitigate flood damage, and the related implementing bill HB 1041; both passed 17-0. Public testimony on these items included some opposition to the flood-related amendment, but no floor debate changed the outcome. The final major item was CS/HB 1221 by Rep. Miller, which would require local option taxes to be renewed by voter referendum every eight years, with longer terms allowed for bonded projects. That bill drew the most extensive testimony and debate, with counties, tourism groups, and local officials warning about impacts on tourism funding, infrastructure, schools, and public safety, while supporters argued for taxpayer accountability and periodic review. After debate, the committee reported the bill favorably on a 13-4 vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• bond.
• The judge released him on a $750,000 bond. $75,000 bond, which costs $7,500 to be released.
• Um, because there's an issue related to conditions of bond, maybe not the amount of bond.
• One was held without bond, the other was released on $500,000 bond on a capital murder case.
• bond-related projects.

Bills: SB664, SB40, SB9, SJR1, SJR5, SB27, SB207, SB2938, SB1901, SB1227, SB1248, SB912, SB1321, SB2143, SB2145, SB1497, SB1239, SB2180, SB1388, SB1762, SB1662, SB1951, SB1537, SB493, SB378, SB1020, SB1018, SB992, SB958, SB920, SB1350, SCR25, SB687, SB1332, SB2185, SB552, SB664, SB40, SB9, SJR1, SJR5, SB458, SB482, SB927, SB984, SB651, SB1620, SB2124, SB2448, SB841, SB843, SB402, SB2662, SB2053, SB2332, SB2112, SB745, SB1247, SB1789, SB27, SB207, SB2938, SB1901, SB1227, SB1248, SB912, SB1321, SB2143, SB2145, SB1497, SB1239, SB2180, SB1388, SB1762, SB1662, SB1951, SB1537, SB493, SB378, SB1020, SB1018, SB992, SB958, SB920, SB1350, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR135, HCR141, HCR46, HCR109, HCR10, SCR25, HB2525, HB142, HB140, HB29, HB451, HB3809, HB3307, HB 1130, HJR1, HB9, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB2308

Keywords: Texas courts, judicial officers, associate judge, magistrate, master, referee, hearing officer, court administration, Government Code Chapter 54, Government Code Chapter 54A, bail training, Article 17.024, Article 15.17, local administrative judge, State Commission on Judicial Conduct, Office of Court Administration, county courts, criminal justice, criminal jurisprudence, judicial qualifications

Transcript Highlights:

• had a general obligation bond in nearly 20 years, nor lease revenue bonds since 2000.
• and lease revenue bonds.
• bond payments that we handle.
• It was about an equal amount of lease revenue bonds and GEO bonds.
• to lease revenue bonds.

Summary: The committee’s first major discussion focused on higher education facilities across UC, CSU, and the community colleges, with Chair Alvarez framing the issue as a final budget hearing before the May Revise. The LAO presented findings that campuses have grown substantially in buildings and square footage, while classroom and lab utilization remains below legislative standards and deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise. The LAO also emphasized that the state and segments lack comprehensive data on capital renewal spending and recommended better reporting, clearer funding targets, and long-term planning for renewal and maintenance. UC, CSU, and community college representatives each described large five-year capital plans, aging facilities, seismic and deferred maintenance needs, and the role of student housing, while noting that construction costs are rising faster than inflation. Members questioned the segments about debt service, utilization rates, and how projects are prioritized. UC said its debt service tied to state support is about $665 million annually and described a $30 billion five-year capital financial plan, including housing, medical centers, and building renewal. CSU said it has about $31 billion in five-year needs and more than $8 billion in deferred maintenance, with funding coming from a mix of state-related and one-time sources since the state shifted capital responsibility to CSU. Community colleges said their unmet facilities needs total about $33.5 billion and explained their use of a scoring matrix and FUSION system to rank projects. The chair and members pressed all three systems to better distinguish between projects that are truly shovel-ready and those that are long-term needs, and discussed whether facilities condition data, total cost of ownership, and more standardized metrics should guide future bond proposals. The committee then turned to Proposition 2 and the Governor’s proposed community college capital outlay projects. The Department of Finance said Prop. 2 provides $1.5 billion for community colleges and that the Governor’s budget proposes 29 projects, with two continuing Prop. 51 projects also included. The LAO supported the overall use of the funds but raised concerns about the current 65/35 split between modernization and growth, the unusually large share of gymnasium projects, and some scoring metrics that favor larger campuses and certain regions. Community college officials said the scoring system was developed through participatory governance and would take one to two years to revise, but they supported the funding and agreed to follow up on questions about project categories and the rationale for the weighting. Members also suggested giving more weight to modernization, regional access, and intersegmental or collaborative projects. A final item addressed the CalKids program. The Department of Finance proposed $56,000 ongoing General Fund for three positions, while the LAO recommended approving two positions but rejecting a manager position until the current $7.5 million marketing campaign is evaluated. ScholarShare’s executive director said CalKids has enrolled more than 5 million children, with nearly 600,000 claims and over $45 million distributed, and argued that additional staff and outreach are needed to reach a goal of 1 million claimed scholarships by the end of 2025 and to implement AB 2808. Members asked about marketing effectiveness, data sharing, and eligibility rules, and the program said it is expanding partnerships with Cradle to Career and CSAC. No final vote was taken in the hearing, and the chair indicated the facilities item would be held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's because for those school districts that issued the bonds in that one-year window, those bonds
• That's because for those school districts that issued the bonds in that one-year window, those bonds
• That's because for those school districts that issued the bonds in that one-year window, those bonds
• That's because for those school districts that issued the bonds in that one-year window, those bonds
• <00:46:26.920> bonding ...they've put the bond bonding amounts in a special fund, and then

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Is reduce the total amount that we're bonding, general fund bonding, and we now have $18 million right
• system it's meant to just pay the bond system it's meant to just pay the bond for<01:13:56.880><
• <01:33:19.199> 207 to attempt to bond 207 to attempt to bond 207 million<01:33:22.440>
• what the Treasurer recommended, and then the highway fund bonding and the other fund bonding.
• bonding it's in there and it is bonded bonding it's in there and it is bonded but<01:35:25.360><

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met to review the lapse extensions in the back of House Bill 25, which governs capital budget appropriations and bonding. Members were walked through how the bill is structured: section 1 covers general, federal, and other funds; section 2 covers highway fund appropriations; later sections authorize borrowing, restrict spending to the stated purposes, and explain why community colleges and the university system operate through their boards of trustees. The chair also explained that lapse extensions are needed because capital projects can span multiple years, and that appropriations normally expire at the end of the biennium unless extended. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on how to identify unspent balances and whether they should be extended, repurposed, or allowed to lapse. Members discussed that if a project is complete or an agency confirms it no longer needs the money, the remaining balance can be reused for another project or, if not needed, lapse back. The committee also reviewed the meaning of bill references and chapter numbers, and how to read prior-year appropriations and extensions in the worksheet. One example discussed was a 2023 Department of Administrative Services courthouse generators item, and members noted that some agencies may rely on encumbered balances rather than explicit lapse extensions, though the chair said he prefers including the extension for flexibility. The committee identified at least one specific change: the Jeffrey Ringe CTE renovation was removed from the governor’s recommended budget because the required local match was not approved, freeing about $18.5 million for possible reuse. Later, the chair noted that lapse extension 49 on the worksheet was no longer needed and could be removed, leaving an unspent balance of $81,500 available for repurposing. The discussion also referenced a Department of Transportation item, Caroline Stratford Freight Rail Improvements, which the agency asked to keep alive through a lapse extension so the funds would not expire on June 30. No formal votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the special obligation bonds.
• It's the special obligation bonds.
• Special obligation bonds are a type of bonds that the state has issued in the past and the Clean Water
• . ...into these sections of the environmental bond bill.
• While this is a crucial step, bonding is not a long-term solution.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee held a hearing on S.2542, the Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill aimed at climate resilience, water infrastructure, conservation, and related permitting reforms. Secretary Rebecca Tepper and administration officials described the bill’s major investments in flood control, coastal resilience, DCR roads/bridges/dams and parks, drinking water and wastewater upgrades, PFAS remediation, land conservation, food security infrastructure, and expanded Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness funding. They also explained proposed streamlining measures for environmental permitting, flood risk disclosures, a Connecticut River Resilient Commission, and a new Resilience Revolving Fund to provide low-cost financing for municipal resilience projects. Committee members asked about affordability, useful life of projects, how the revolving fund would be capitalized, and how the bill would help communities such as Lawrence, Methuen, and coastal towns; officials said the fund would initially use existing trust resources, not new fees, and could later support special obligation bonds once it has a track record. Several witnesses supported the bill but urged larger authorizations or additional provisions. Boston Harbor Now asked for more funding for MVP and the state’s resilient coast plan, and supported permitting reforms for nature-based and hybrid solutions. The Massachusetts Rivers Alliance urged inclusion of drought-management language from separate bills, plus a statewide flood buyout program and a water reuse commission. Green Roots called for dedicated funding for outdoor and indoor air quality monitoring and indoor air quality improvements, especially in environmental justice communities affected by traffic and airport pollution. Conservation and forestry advocates requested more funding for urban tree canopy, local nurseries, and workforce training, while also raising concerns about PFAS impacts and the need for clearer municipal reforestation language. Agriculture and water infrastructure groups focused on food security and drinking water needs. The Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership and the Mass Food System Collaborative backed the food security infrastructure grant program and farmland protection funding, warning that the program needs continued support in fiscal 2027 and that farmland loss is accelerating. The Massachusetts Waterworks Association said the bill does not go far enough on drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, citing large statewide capital needs and PFAS compliance costs, and asked for recurring funding and broader eligibility for climate resilience grants. A Product Stewardship Council representative also urged funding for a waste reduction needs assessment, citing growing landfill constraints and rising disposal costs. No votes were taken during the hearing."}{

Transcript Highlights:

• , consolidation pre-design from GO bonds, consolidation pre-design from GO bonds, and<00:13:13.560
• Um I've been on a lot of bonding committees, a lot of bonding tours over the years.
• lot of bonding tours uh over the years. lot of bonding tours uh over the years.
• And um while I've not been bonding And um while I've not been bonding chair, chair, chair, um<00
• can't imagine how difficult the bonding can't imagine how difficult the bonding chair<00:32:05.880

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The committee took up a large bonding bill and reviewed the final spreadsheet of capital investments. Chairs and members repeatedly thanked staff, House and Senate negotiators, and the Governor’s team for a collaborative process. The bill was described as a statewide package rather than a partisan one, with major funding for higher education asset preservation, DNR projects, public safety, transportation, the Met Council, veterans facilities, corrections, DEED/local projects, and a large water infrastructure section. House Fiscal staff and Senate fiscal staff walked through the bill line by line. Highlights included University of Minnesota and Minnesota State asset preservation, education and language immersion school funding, DNR trail and flood mitigation projects, public safety facilities, local road and bridge grants, Met Council parks and I/I grants, veterans home and armory funding, corrections projects including the Faribault vocational expansion, and many local economic development and public facility projects across Greater Minnesota and the metro. The bill also included Public Facilities Authority water and wastewater grants, housing rehabilitation funding, historical society grants, a Minnesota Zoo operating transfer, airport appropriations, and several cancellations of prior appropriations to help finance the package. Members generally praised the bill and the bipartisan work behind it. Some Republicans emphasized the one-time license fee reduction and affordability, while also saying DEED’s business development infrastructure funding was too low. Senator Nelson highlighted long-awaited transportation projects such as Highway 14 and township roads. Senator Dibble supported the transportation investments but criticized the bill for having no transit funding, calling that a major omission. No vote was recorded in the excerpt, but the discussion centered on final review and support for moving the bonding bill forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> I I think you will see action on bonding >> I I think you will see action on bonding
• <00:05:14.800> bill governor has put forth his bonding bill governor has put forth his bonding
• We have the will to move a bonding bill this session.
• We have the will to move a bonding bill this session.
• We have the will to move a bonding bill this session.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• million allocated I guess through a bond million allocated I guess through a bond for<00:28:29.360
• <00:39:49.000> in issue those Bonds in issue those Bonds in 2026<00:39:51.000> um<00
• <00:44:11.559> and billion dollars in bond and billion dollars in bond and authorization<00
• have to um again go out and issue bonds have to um again go out and issue bonds that<00:45:45.240
• That would possibly be bonded, yes. So in 26, it will be possibly bonded. Yes.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Public Works and Highways committee held a capital budget orientation led by Legislative Budget Assistant Office staff, who walked members through the budget materials, the capital budget process, and the committee’s compare sheet. The presentation explained that agencies begin developing capital requests nearly a year in advance, submit them by May 1, and that the governor’s recommended capital budget is a reduced version of the much larger agency wish list. Members were told the agencies initially requested about $1.1 billion in projects, the catalog was trimmed to just over $400 million in general fund projects, and the governor’s recommendation in the pink book totals about $143 million in general fund capital appropriations. The committee also reviewed the prior capital budget and related statutes and committee procedures. Several specific projects drew discussion. The Department of Education’s CTE projects were explained as having been shifted into the operating budget in the prior cycle and now returning to the capital budget recommendation; members asked whether there was a backup CTE project and whether local approval had been secured for the named project. The Cannon Mountain tramway request was highlighted as a $20 million recommendation, with the presenter explaining that an earlier $18 million appropriation would be lapsed back to the general fund to help balance the budget. The Department of Corrections’ new prison project was also discussed; members were told the state has already appropriated $50 million for planning and site evaluation, but the governor’s current capital budget does not include a new prison construction appropriation because the project is not yet ready for that phase and may need to be funded differently, possibly through a separate, staggered appropriation. State Treasurer Monica Mezzapelli then presented on debt affordability and the state’s borrowing capacity. She said the state’s credit position has improved, with the debt-to-revenue ratio falling from 8.2% in 2015 to 3.8% in 2024, and explained that RSA 6-C limits debt authorization to 10% of unrestricted prior-year revenue. She noted that the Treasury’s planning assumes $60 million in annual bond issuance, with the prison-related $40 million now expected to be issued in 2026 rather than 2025 because the project is not ready to spend the funds. She said the state can still borrow more, but additional debt service must be paid from operating funds, and recommended keeping capital bonding in the $120 million to $130 million range to preserve affordability and the state’s credit rating. Members asked for clarification on the CTE funding shift, the prison schedule, and the meaning of the large agency request totals. The chair and treasurer discussed the governor’s $143 million recommendation versus the committee’s usual target range, and the treasurer said $130 million would be more comfortable than $140 million, with $135 million described as a possible compromise. No formal votes or committee actions were taken in the portion provided; the meeting was informational and ended with the presenters offering to answer follow-up questions as agencies come before the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're in 20 years of bonding.
• So on a $350 million bond package, the payment on a 20-year bond is $53 million a year.
• the bonds that we already have, and the bond market was at 2%.
• So you can buy 10- or 20-year bonds, five-year bonds.
• You can buy 10- or 20-year bonds, five-year bonds, and you can sell that in the market.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a 4.65 bonding capacity, and so because of that our project is a just one-building project.
• <00:26:31.880> potential 5050 or $60 million in bonding potential 5050 or $60 million in bonding
• Our bonding potential increases at roughly a million dollars a year.
• Our bonding potential increases at roughly a million dollars a year.
• <00:33:04.840> potential committing our full bonding potential committing our full bonding

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:05 HB 537 Discussion 00:00:40 HB 537 Vote 00:02:45 HJR 34 Discussion 00:03:30 HJR 34 Vote 00:07:45 HJR 30 Discussion 00:08:30 HJR 30 Vote 00:10:25 HJR 32 Discussion 00:11:00 HJR 32 Vote 00:41:00, 958, all

Summary: The committee took up several measures related to appropriations and school facilities. House Bill 537 was explained as a technical fix to Kentucky’s opioid abatement settlement framework so the state can accept funds from national bankruptcy settlements under the allocation structure now used by the courts; the bill was supported by the Attorney General’s office and local government groups and received a favorable recommendation. House Joint Resolution 34 authorized release of previously appropriated KCTCS funds for three projects, and members discussed whether KCTCS facilities could be used more broadly for community needs such as public health, workforce, and other services. KCTCS officials said they were open to that idea, and the resolution also received a favorable recommendation. House Joint Resolution 30, concerning the Waters program and release of funds for projects that had remained in design, was adopted by committee substitute and passed favorably. The committee then heard extensive testimony on House Joint Resolution 32, which concerns school facility gap funding for districts with low bonding capacity. The chair and sponsor explained that the General Assembly had previously asked the auditor and Blue & Co. to analyze district data because of disputes over project costs and bonding capacity. Superintendents from Marion County, Augusta Independent, Williamstown, and Walton Verona described their projects and financial constraints. Marion County and Augusta argued that full gap funding is necessary for new school or multipurpose facility projects that cannot be phased in; Augusta emphasized its old building stock, high poverty rate, and the need for a gymnasium/multipurpose space used for school and community functions. Williamstown described a STEM center and field expansion, saying the project would be delayed for years without full funding. Walton Verona described rapid growth, overcrowding, and an intermediate school project that had risen sharply in cost from the original estimate. Members asked questions about the accuracy of cost estimates and the scope of the projects, including why some estimates differed from the auditor’s figures and whether the funding requests covered only parts of larger phased plans. The testimony generally supported full funding for the listed districts, with the districts arguing that the projects are necessary for safe, modern learning environments and that local tax effort has already been substantial. Each of the measures considered during the meeting was reported out favorably, with the chair voting no on the resolutions and bills before the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• funded with General obligation Bond funded with General obligation Bond proceeds<00:05:07.039>
• :40.359> Bill that the projects in the bonding Bill that the projects in the bonding Bill are<
• successful in the October 2020 bonding successful in the October 2020 bonding Bill<01:08:13.279>
• um of course uh when we made that bond um of course uh when we made that bond that<01:08:47.920>
• legislature can put together a bonding legislature can put together a bonding bill<01:36:45.880>

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Capital Investment Committee met on January 23 and approved the minutes from the previous meeting. The main presentation was from the Office of the Legislative Auditor on its evaluation of Minnesota’s Sustainable Building guidelines, also referred to as B3. The auditors said the guidelines apply to certain new buildings and major renovations funded with general obligation bonds and are intended to improve energy efficiency, occupant health, and environmental quality. They described the program as involving the Departments of Administration and Commerce, the University of Minnesota’s Center for Sustainable Building Research, and project teams, but found widespread confusion over who is responsible for administering and enforcing the program. The auditors reported that oversight and accountability are limited, compliance is not clearly tracked, and there is no agency assigned to ensure projects follow the guidelines or to require compliance data. They said many projects in a review of 2020 bonding projects had not begun tracking compliance, and that up-to-date data were often missing. They also found the law’s stated program objectives are outdated because the referenced energy-code provision was repealed in 2009, and that measurable goals have not been established for most of the guideline categories. The office recommended that the legislature designate a responsible agency, clarify duties in statute, require compliance monitoring and data collection, update the program’s stated goals, and direct systematic evaluation of cost and sustainability outcomes. Members asked about consequences for noncompliance, funding, and whether cost impacts should be studied first. The auditor said the requirements are legal obligations, but no real enforcement consequences have been used so far, and any consequences discussed have been mostly theoretical. She said the Departments of Administration and Commerce were receiving about $1 million combined to support the contract with the Center for Sustainable Building Research, while other state agencies were not receiving dedicated funding for oversight. In response to questions about costs, she said the overall effect of the guidelines on project costs and sustainability is still unknown, but that the legislature could direct an analysis of cost impacts before taking further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's important to clarify how we implement bond bills and to distinguish between bond authorizations
• This is also an ag bond bill, as well as an environmental bond bill, as you've heard; it's very comprehensive
• I'm in favor of much of the environmental bond bill.
• I'm in favor of much of the environmental bond bill.
• Food Trust Program in the 2025 environmental bond bill.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The hearing focused on the Healey-Driscoll administration’s Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill. Administration officials said the bill would fund climate resilience, clean water, land conservation, parks, PFAS remediation, food security infrastructure, and coastal and inland flood protection, while also streamlining permitting for housing, restoration, and other resilience projects. They emphasized that the bond authorizes spending but does not itself obligate it, and said the proposal includes deauthorizations as housekeeping. Committee members asked about the new Resilience Revolving Fund, flood and drought management, MVP funding, land acquisition, Chapter 61 right-of-first-refusal changes, salt marsh carbon sequestration, and how the bill would help smaller municipalities and offset expected federal funding losses. Officials said the revolving fund would be managed through EEA and the Clean Water Trust, with criteria aimed at directing aid to communities most in need, and noted that drought issues would continue to be handled through existing DEP and drought commission tools. Several committee members and witnesses discussed specific policy provisions, including flood disclosure requirements for homebuyers and renters, expanded authority for regional planning and small-town access to grants, and permitting reforms that would exempt or expedite certain environmental restoration and priority housing projects from more time-consuming review processes. Administration witnesses defended the reforms as a way to achieve the same environmental outcomes faster and with more certainty, while some advocates argued the bill should go further, especially on Chapter 91 and restoration permitting. The administration also described investments in DCR facilities, water and wastewater systems, open space, agricultural easements, and a new focus on blue carbon and salt marsh restoration. Public testimony largely supported the bill. Mass Audubon, the Trustees of Reservations, the Environmental League of Massachusetts, The Nature Conservancy, MAPC, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, municipal officials, and others praised the bill’s resilience, conservation, and water infrastructure investments. Some witnesses urged additional funding for land protection, coastal resilience, buyouts, and restoration, and several called for stronger or simpler permitting reforms. Municipal witnesses from Boston, Beckett, Beverly, Conway, and regional planning organizations stressed the need for flexible financing, especially for small and rural communities facing costly infrastructure and climate adaptation projects. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided; the committee heard testimony and asked questions before moving on to additional panels.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, subsection 3 is simply the bonding authority for the city to issue those bonds under current Minnesota
• this subsection 3 is simply the bonding this subsection 3 is simply the bonding authority<00:03:
• bonds under current Minnesota state law. bonds under current Minnesota state law.
• Subdivision three, bonding authority, authorizes the city to issue bonds to finance the project listed
• and how long the bonds are going to be. and how long the bonds are going to be.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• hopeful that we will see this uh bonding hopeful that we will see this uh bonding project<00:53:
• MMB last sold bonds for the months.
• So, it's a little bit like revenue bonds, but not because revenue bonds have a payment in place for them
• , but not because don't revenue bonds, but not because don't revenue bonds<01:06:46.559> have<
• bonds have a payment in place for them? bonds have a payment in place for them?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I wanted to start by just noting that in terms of the overall bond, the $10 billion bond, the Water Chapter
• The chance was now to shift these over to the bonds.
• We've allocated about $500 million from the earlier Prop. 1 water bond, Prop. 68 parks bond, and the
• We've allocated about $500 million from the earlier Prop 1 water bond, Prop 68 Parks bond, and the recent
• And then just on the funding for water quality and safe drinking water in the bond... ...the bond was

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on water and coastal resilience heard an overview of the governor’s Proposition 4 spending plan, with presentations from the Department of Finance, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and later coastal agencies. Members discussed the water chapter’s major allocations for drinking water and wastewater, recycled water, tribal water infrastructure, groundwater recharge and SGMA implementation, dam safety, flood protection, integrated regional water management, Salton Sea projects, and water data/stream gauges. The LAO noted that many programs are established and have clear funding processes, but some newer or less-defined programs may warrant more detailed future budget requests and reporting. No votes were taken on the agenda items. Members raised concerns about groundwater subsidence, water deliveries from the Delta, the pace of water storage investments, instream flows, and whether bond dollars were being used to backfill General Fund reductions. Administration witnesses said groundwater recharge spending is being paced because prior years already funded substantial SGMA work, that Delta operations are governed by water quality, salinity, and species requirements, and that Proposition 1 storage projects have moved slowly because they are locally led and require permitting and financing. The Water Board and DWR said they use public needs assessments, annual plans, and existing grant processes to prioritize projects, and Finance said some General Fund programs were shifted to Proposition 4 to help balance the budget. Members also asked for clearer public tracking of bond spending and more concise future reporting. In the coastal resilience portion, the Ocean Protection Council and Coastal Conservancy described Proposition 4 funding for sea level rise adaptation, coastal flood management, habitat restoration, public access, and San Francisco Bay projects, with a multi-year rollout based on project readiness and recent large state investments. The Conservancy said it would use its existing rolling grant process, while OPC said its sea level rise grants would build on existing programs and new technical assistance. The Department of Fish and Wildlife explained its proposed use of bond funds for climate-ready fisheries, hatchery modernization, salmon monitoring, whale- and turtle-safe fishing gear, and a specific hatchery operations request tied to the Friant settlement. The LAO said the coastal chapter’s proposed first-year spending is relatively modest but generally reasonable given staffing and project readiness, while members emphasized oversight, transparency, and coordination across agencies and jurisdictions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Jason was on a bond for murder was on a PR bond and committed a murder.
• He committed a murder on PR bond.
• And it looks like it doesn't say specifics, but it says it was a drug arrest, uh, multiple bond bond
• So there's, there's 3 things that happen when you go for, for bond, right? There's personal bond.
• The felony bond was from, oh no, sorry, the felony bond is from El Paso County.

Transcript Highlights:

• So total appropriations for this bond bill are $1,255,990,759.
• revenues, $363,875,000 in bonding authority.
• Bond and special fund reprogramming, $75,000 in bonding authority.
• Bond and special fund reprogramming was $1,600,000.
• The bond committee is adjourned. Thank you.

Summary: The committee met to finalize the FY27 bond bill, beginning with a roll call and a detailed review of updated appropriation amounts. The Comptroller General walked through major changes across agencies, including additions for OMB, the Department of State, DNREC, Agriculture, Education, and Transportation, and explained the funding sources that would cover the total $1.256 billion package. Members then debated several large items, especially the $110 million appropriation for the Diamond State Port Corporation, the $35 million Legislative Hall addition, the $20 million Community Reinvestment Fund, and the $30 million land and building acquisition line. Questions focused on the port project’s costs, expected jobs, return on investment, and whether the state would face future commitments; Secretary of State Charney Patitofunded Chances and other officials testified that the port expansion would create construction and permanent jobs and support long-term economic growth, while some members remained skeptical and objected to the process and spending priorities. The committee also discussed school construction funding, with officials explaining that additional money would forward-fund projects already in the pipeline and help districts that had been turned down for certificates of necessity. Other items reviewed included funding for park improvements, marina acquisition, the Plummer Center demolition and transfer, the Pyle Center sewer project, the Site Readiness Fund, affordable housing, the Arts Endowment Fund, an unclaimed property task force, and various transportation and community transportation projects. Several members raised concerns about county distribution, minority-party involvement in negotiations, and the scale of certain appropriations, but the majority defended the package as statewide investment and economic development. The committee then voted on the Section 1 addendum and a series of new and replacement epilogue sections, including provisions for the port project, Legislative Hall minor capital improvements, land acquisition, affordable housing, the Community Reinvestment Fund, downtown development districts, the Rite Aid demolition, the Site Readiness Fund, school construction formula review, and enhanced school capital funding. Most motions carried, with a few recorded no votes or abstentions on the main addendum. The meeting concluded with a motion authorizing technical corrections by the Comptroller General’s office, followed by closing remarks thanking staff and members for their work and noting that this was likely the final bond committee meeting for some participants before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Ultimately, both GO bonds and trunk highway bonds are debt, but the repayment is from different sources
• <00:22:56.200> in drive bonding in drive bonding in general<00:22:58.039> um<00:22:
• <00:23:06.720> are<00:23:07.159> for of bonds so trunk Highway bonds are for of bonds
• that found in the bonding that found in the bonding bill<00:23:31.240> um<00:23:31.799>
• of bonds uh ultimately both uh Geo bonds of bonds uh ultimately both uh Geo bonds and<00:23:49.520

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Working Group met on January 15, 2025, with Chair John Kosnik opening by saying the committee expected to pass a transportation bill this year and emphasizing efficient use of transportation revenues, maintenance of roads and transit, and safety. Members and staff introduced themselves, and several representatives noted their interest in roads, bridges, and regional transportation needs. Kosnik also said he had spoken with Representative Kel about leadership arrangements and stressed that bipartisan support would be needed for a transportation bill. House Fiscal Staff’s Andrew Lee and House Research’s Matt Burus then gave an overview of transportation finance, focusing mainly on highways and transit. Burus explained Minnesota’s highway funding structure, including the constitutional Highway User Tax Distribution Fund and the related Trunk Highway Fund, County State-Aid Highway Fund, and Municipal State-Aid Street Fund. He reviewed the main revenue sources: the motor fuels tax, motor vehicle registration tax, motor vehicle sales tax, portions of the general sales tax tied to auto parts, vehicle rentals and leases, and the retail delivery fee. He noted several changes from 2023 legislation, including indexing of the gas tax, creation of the Transportation Advancement Account, and the retail delivery fee, which began in July 2024 and therefore would affect fiscal year 2025 rather than the fiscal 2024 data shown. The presentation also covered how highway dollars flow through constitutional formulas, including the 95/5 split from the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, with the 5 percent set-aside used for town roads, town bridges, and flexible highway purposes such as turnbacks. Burus distinguished trunk highway bonds from general obligation bonds and explained that both are debt-financing tools for transportation projects, but with different repayment sources and uses. No votes or formal actions were taken at this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• That will be separate with the climate bond.
• And has done for previous bonds.
• But know that this bond, we aim to be accountable. We want it to be the most accessible bond ever.
• Now you may wonder why is urban ag part of a climate bond?
• It's only 7% of the bond. About 200 of it, as Ms.

Keywords: 988, house, all