Transcript Highlights:

• We have one bond program, four loan programs, and four grant programs.
• But in recent weeks, we have been extremely busy with tax-exempt bond financing.
• We've passed three different children's bonds over the years.
• I can go into more detail on the bond financing program and the agenda.
• You have the data from 2023 of all the bond transactions that were done under CHAFA.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:09:44.960> and county capital improvement bonding and county capital improvement bonding
• > care<01:09:46.880> nonprofit housing bonds and healthc care nonprofit housing bonds and
• There would be a bond allocation bill as a matter of fact.
• to a um uh in order to obtain allocation to a um uh in order to obtain allocation of<01:13:48.800
• <01:14:51.360> or things 180 days um of the allocation or things 180 days um of the allocation

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Prioritize how we're allocating the money so that we can cut taxes.
• Why is it required from a bond repayment perspective?
• Why is it required from a bond repayment perspective?
• Why is it required from a bond repayment perspective?
• The original intention is that the bond has not been settled.

Summary: The committee first considered revisions to the JBC rules, which staff said were all prompted by acts passed in the 2025 legislative session. The rules were adopted without objection. Members then received a balanced budget presentation from DFA Secretary Jim Hudson on the governor’s FY27 proposal, which he said was built around three priorities: limiting state government growth, continuing investments in education, and advancing income tax cuts. He highlighted major additions for education funding, EFA growth, pay plan costs, higher education productivity funding, drug task forces, corrections medical costs, the governor’s 1033 initiative, SNAP error-rate reduction, and Medicaid sustainability, while also explaining a new A/B funding category structure intended to prioritize recurring costs and preserve room for tax cuts. Members questioned Hudson about the cost of income tax reductions, the constitutional balanced-budget requirement, education funding, the Educational Adequacy Fund, Medicaid trust fund balances, and the impact of federal changes on Medicaid and SNAP. Hudson said each tenth of a percent income tax cut would cost about $58 million, the budget remained balanced, public education would still receive historic increases, and the Medicaid trust fund would be monitored closely with additional set-asides proposed. He also said the FY27 SNAP administrative cost increase would be about $18 million. The committee then heard from the Division of Higher Education, which reported institutions were 2.61% more productive overall and that the budget recommendation followed the statutory productivity formula. Questions focused on why some institutions were receiving decreases or large increases, how the formula works, and how the new return-on-investment metric and committee composition would affect future funding. The committee approved several higher education-related actions, including personnel changes for nine institutions and special language for North Arkansas College’s move into the University of Arkansas system. Staff then walked members through the higher education appropriation summary, explaining large percentage increases at several institutions were tied to federal funds or corrected carry-forward issues, including the U of A School of Mathematical, Sciences and the Arts, South Arkansas College, SAU Tech, ASU Mountain Home, and ASU Newport. Members also discussed UAPB’s 1890 extension program and the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture’s land-grant matching funds; officials said UAPB’s recommendation was being aligned with actual spending and that the Division of Agriculture’s Smith-Lever and Hatch matches were included within its overall appropriation. The committee ultimately adopted the Higher Education Coordinating Board’s recommendations for all institutions and then moved on to the Department of Corrections section, with the chair outlining how the committee would proceed through those appropriations by section.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, this state bond would add student and employee housing as an allowable bond expenditure
• Additionally, this state bond would add student and employee housing as an allowable bond expenditure
• As noted in your excellent committee analysis, the UC has not received a state geo-bond fund allocation
• That is why in this bond, different from previous higher education bonds, we have included housing.
• The funding that has been allocated has done a lot of good.

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development heard a long agenda focused mainly on housing production, higher education facilities, homelessness, and permitting reform. Early items included AB 6, which would direct HCD to convene a working group on allowing three- to ten-unit “missing middle” housing to be built under the Residential Code rather than the Building Code; AB 48, a higher education bond proposal that would fund campus repairs, modernization, disaster recovery, and student/employee housing; and AB 76, which would clarify a Chula Vista university innovation district exemption so the project can include academic buildings and housing without conflicting with surplus land rules. Supporters emphasized affordability, cost savings, student housing needs, and access to education, while members raised questions about implementation, affordability requirements, and project scope. The committee later took votes on these items, with AB 6, AB 48, and AB 76 all moving forward on unanimous or near-unanimous votes to Appropriations. Members also heard AB 595, which would create a state homeownership tax credit pilot to support affordable for-sale housing. The author and supporters argued that California’s homeownership rate is at historic lows and that the bill would help close racial wealth gaps by financing homes working families can buy. The committee approved AB 595 and sent it to Appropriations. The consent calendar, including several other housing-related bills, was also approved unanimously. A major portion of the hearing was devoted to AB 1165, the California Housing Justice Act of 2025, which would require ongoing state investment and a financing plan to address homelessness and housing affordability. The author and witnesses described the scale of homelessness, the limits of one-time funding, and the need for sustained, accountable funding streams. After testimony from housing advocates and people with lived experience, the committee passed AB 1165 on a 10-0 vote to Appropriations. Finally, the committee heard AB 609, a CEQA reform bill that would create a simplified exemption for qualifying infill housing projects in already developed areas. Supporters framed it as a targeted way to reduce delays and costs for housing near jobs and transit, while opponents from environmental justice, labor, and tribal groups warned it could reduce public participation, weaken protections for disadvantaged communities, and create consultation concerns for tribal cultural resources. The author said the bill would not change zoning or affordability tools and would continue to work with opponents on amendments. The bill was moved forward after extensive discussion, with members noting ongoing negotiations on tribal consultation and labor concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• revenue bonds.
• revenue bonds.
• So you know it's this whole bonds.
• bonds or our general obligation bonds bonds or our general obligation bonds that<06:05:11.120>
• Each individual geo bond is to pay back. Each individual geo bond is voted<06:07:02.280> on.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and we allocate money to people<00:14:34.880> who<00:14:35.000> are<00:14:35.080>
• , it didn't go there, and here allocated, it didn't go there, and here is<00:18:32.360> the<00
• of discussion about the state's bond of discussion about the state's bond rating. rating. rating
• what is the impact of the state's bond what is the impact of the state's bond rating<00:21:41.240
• Mingay about whether or not we typically talk about fraud in determining bond ratings.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee took up House File 3683, which would require the state budget forecast to estimate the budgetary impacts of fraud committed against state programs. Chair Nash argued that fraud has real fiscal effects on the state, that those costs should be quantified in the forecast much like inflation was previously incorporated, and that doing so would help lawmakers understand the true cost of money lost to fraud. He also said the bill was intended to give MMB direction to develop a way to forecast fraud’s impact and that the issue should be treated as part of the state’s fiscal outlook. Deputy Commissioner Anna Mingy of Minnesota Management and Budget testified in opposition to the bill’s approach, saying fraud is unacceptable and MMB is committed to combating it, but that the twice-a-year forecast is not the right tool for this analysis. She said forecasts are forward-looking budget tools based on projected revenues and spending, while fraud analysis is retrospective and involves legal definitions and processes. She also warned that requiring MMB to consult with legislative chairs on fraud estimates before public release could politicize the forecast and would be a departure from current practice. Members raised concerns about how fraud would be defined and quantified, whether the bill would cover known or potential fraud, and whether it would duplicate existing budget adjustments. Chair Nash responded that the bill was modeled on prior inflation-forecast language and said fraud’s fiscal impact should be estimated even if the exact number is debated. Other members questioned whether the proposal would add value or create subjective numbers, while supporters said audits and program integrity data provide a basis for estimating a range. Deputy Commissioner Mingy also answered questions about bond ratings, saying Minnesota maintained its AAA rating and that rating agencies focus on governance and long-term obligations, not specific fraud estimates. She later said the administration’s anti-fraud package includes permanent bans on state contracts and grants for individuals convicted of fraud. The discussion ended without a recorded vote or final action in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• So HB2 original: we had $574 million in bonding capacity.
• We had $574 million in bonding capacity added, plus 18.9% of surplus.
• The P1 is fully allocated. Yes.
• I and I has to go through Bond Commission. I and I has to go through Bond Commission.
• That’s the exercise we went through, I think, two or three Bond Commissions last year.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs met on May 19, 2026, established a quorum, approved the May 11 minutes, and then took up several House bills. House Bill 1039, presented by Rep. DeSotel, would add taxpayer protections in local sales tax audits by requiring clear notice that waiving prescription is voluntary, requiring a written request identifying records sought before an estimated assessment, and allowing mutual agreements to suspend interest and penalties during an audit. The committee had no opposition and reported the bill favorably. House Bill 799, handled by the State Fire Marshal’s office, would move boiler inspections into the Fire Marshal’s office and allow licensed industry inspectors to perform them, with the stated goal of improving efficiency because current staffing only covers about 20% of inspections; it was also reported favorably without objection. The committee then spent most of the meeting on House Bill 2, the capital outlay bill, with Chairman Bacala explaining that the House had worked with the Division of Administration and Facility Planning and Control to find about $50 million in savings through cash-flow adjustments, under-budget bids, over-appropriations, and bundled-project savings. He argued the bill has grown beyond a true five-year plan and that some prior funding is not transparent because money placed in projects in earlier years no longer appears in later versions of the bill. Division officials said the savings would help address deferred maintenance, especially in higher education, and that Priority 2 projects are used to absorb additional funds if more savings are found later in the year. Senator Luneau asked about dormant projects and the process for removing or reallocating funds from projects with no recent expenditures; officials said such removals must go through the Bond Commission and that they are considering ways to improve the process. Bacala then offered amendments to HB 2, saying they kept Priority 1 fully funded, added about $54 million in Priority 2 projects, and included a large Priority 5 list of member requests. The committee adopted the amendment set without objection and then reported HB 2 as amended favorably. The committee also reported House Bill 3 favorably; Bacala described it as a housekeeping measure that provides bonding capacity to move HB 2 forward. Finally, the committee granted staff authority to make technical changes to the reported bills and adjourned on Senator Lambert’s motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• FMFA to bond that revenue to get ambulances.
• For allocating the capital sooner. What is the solution for the legislative authorization?
• allocate the capital and not have...
• I can't allocate capital today. We confront it and get reimbursed from the reinsurers.
• Shift it to the ratepayers and bond it; ratepayers can never afford that big ticket item.

Transcript Highlights:

• Alternatively, the general obligation bond is a great place to look.
• Bond issuance is an option. Multiple state agencies can do that.
• So it's not a given that bond financing will result in cheap capital.
• But one of the benefits of PPPs is that they do have an explicit risk allocation in them.
• Can it cascade down from a bond into a permanent revolving fund if that's consistent with bond rules?

Summary: The committee first heard AB 13, which would restructure the CPUC to increase legislative oversight, add legislative liaisons, require more detailed and timely reporting on rate-setting decisions, and add a public advocate member. The author and supporters argued the bill would improve transparency, accountability, and geographic diversity in CPUC decision-making amid rising utility rates. Witnesses from TURN, San Joaquin County, SDG&E, and former CPUC Commissioner Loretta Lynch offered support or support-in-principle, while no opposition testimony was presented. Members generally praised the bill’s transparency goals, and AB 13 passed 10-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open for absent members. The committee then adopted the 2025-2026 committee rules and approved three consent items: AB 61, AB 365, and AB 406. The next bill, AB 99, would cap investor-owned utility rate increases above inflation except for specified costs such as safety, modernization, and fuel/commodity costs. The author and supporters, including a representative of the California Senior Legislature, said the bill was needed to protect ratepayers, especially seniors and low-income customers, from repeated rate hikes. Opposition came from utility labor, utilities, the Chamber of Commerce, and others, who argued the bill was too simplistic, could suppress labor costs, and did not account for major cost drivers such as wildfire mitigation, mandates, and net metering. Several members supported moving the bill forward as a starting point on affordability, while others criticized it as overly blunt. AB 99 passed 11-0 to Appropriations, with the roll left open. The hearing then shifted to an informational panel on strategies to reduce California transmission costs. A Public Advocates Office staffer described a growing backlog of approved-but-unbuilt transmission projects, rising transmission access charges, and long project timelines driven largely by utility pre-application and construction periods. Panelists from Net Zero California and consulting firms presented research suggesting that public financing or public-private partnership lease models could reduce transmission costs by lowering financing, tax, and capital costs, with estimated savings of up to 57% and as much as $123 billion over 40 years. PG&E’s representative said the utility is already pursuing federal loan guarantees, grants, and a public-private partnership with Citizens Energy, but warned that state ownership could create tax, wildfire-liability, and governance risks. Members asked about the CPUC’s role, the causes of delays, and whether public financing could complement existing competitive solicitation processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• allocation.
• In this particular month, we're not as tight to the policy allocation as the current allocation, and
• what that allocation should be.
• the most recent asset allocation.
• The asset allocation section maps directly to the asset allocation section.

Summary: The committee met to approve prior minutes and receive updates on the Legacy Fund transparency website and fund performance. Staff reported the website procurement was in contract negotiations, with a planned go-live around November 1, and that the site would provide downloadable, more transparent information on fund holdings, allocations, history, and legislative appropriations while protecting confidential data. The investment office then reviewed performance through January 2026, describing strong returns relative to benchmarks, noting real estate and fixed income as weaker areas, and explaining that the fund’s diversification and internal management had helped offset market volatility, including recent geopolitical impacts. Members also discussed the in-state investment program, especially the Bank of North Dakota’s CD-match allocation. Several members questioned whether the program had been static for years and whether the uncommitted balance should remain parked there if it was not being used. The committee voted to pause further transfers into the program until the Bank provides a report and the committee can consider possible statutory changes; the motion also requested a cost-benefit analysis from RVK, and it passed by roll call vote. In the afternoon, RVK presented its review of the investment policy statement as it relates to the in-state investment program. The consultant said it found no major policy impediments, and that implementers and stakeholders generally felt the program was proceeding as intended. RVK emphasized best practices such as third-party due diligence, competitive risk-adjusted returns, diversification, pacing, and exit strategies, while cautioning that required lower-return investments or spending commitments can create pressure on the fund’s long-term real value. The consultant also raised ancillary concerns about state-level concentration risk, the need to distinguish between public and commercial infrastructure, and the lack of a central repository for all state funding commitments to the same projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're trying to allocate what combinations of things we're going to do for revenue, for budget cuts,
• We're trying to allocate what combinations of things we're going to do for revenue, for budget cuts,
• Um, we got AAA bond rating from all the bond houses, which is the best rating you can get, suggesting
• Um, we got AAA bond rating from all the bond houses, which is the best rating you can get, suggesting
• Um, we got AAA bond rating from all the bond houses, which is the best rating you can get, suggesting

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I've done a lot of work... looking at bonding history but um we looking at bonding history but um we
• want to remind people that this bonding want to remind people that this bonding request<00:15:22.199
• <00:42:24.119> list then what you see as a bonding list then what you see as a bonding list
• We follow the allocation. We cannot levy. We cannot do our own bonding.
• > state cannot do our own bonding our state cannot do our own bonding our state bonding<01:21:

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• “So we’re adding the $122 million to the RSA allocation for FY26.
• Why is it required from a bond repayment perspective?
• Why is it required from a bond repayment perspective?
• But the original intention, that bond has not been settled.
• We're addressing familial connections and sort of that bonding.

Summary: The committee first adopted revised JBC rules, which staff said were updated to reflect legislation passed in the 2025 session. It then heard a presentation from DFA Secretary Jim Hudson on the governor’s proposed balanced budget for FY27, with no action taken. Hudson said the budget reflects three priorities: limiting state-government growth, continuing investments in education, and advancing income-tax cuts. He highlighted increases for education funding through EFAs, pay-plan costs for Corrections, DPS, and the Attorney General, higher education productivity funding, drug task forces, a Corrections medical contract, the governor’s 1033 initiative, SNAP error-rate reduction efforts, and an additional $100 million set aside for Medicaid sustainability. Committee members questioned the size of the tax cuts, the balance requirement, public education funding, Medicaid trust-fund levels, EFA funding, and the expected impact of new SNAP cost-sharing rules. The Division of Higher Education then presented its productivity-based funding recommendations. Officials said institutions were 2.61% more productive overall, with funding changes driven by a statutory formula that rewards degree production, underserved populations, and high-demand fields. Members asked about declines at UA Little Rock, the formula’s multipliers, the role of the Arkansas Access Act and a new return-on-investment metric, and how two-year colleges are adjusted for size. The committee also reviewed special items and approved two letters: one authorizing 17 net personnel changes across nine institutions, and another adding special language for North Arkansas College’s entry into the University of Arkansas system. The committee then adopted the Higher Education Coordinating Board’s recommendations for all institutions. A lengthy portion of the meeting focused on the University of Arkansas system, especially Fayetteville’s athletics funding and the broader impact of the House/NIL settlement. Chancellor Charles Robinson and system officials explained that the board had waived a longstanding campus transfer and directed the university to provide an additional $6 million to athletics, with some costs likely to be passed through to students but partially offset by existing budget growth. Members debated whether the university should prioritize academics or athletics, how the transfer originated, and whether the athletic changes would affect affordability. The committee also discussed the 1890 extension program at UAPB and the Division of Agriculture’s land-grant funding. UAPB officials said the state match is intended to be one-to-one, that the current recommendation aligns appropriation with actual spending, and that a $2 million set-aside remains available if needed. The Division of Agriculture later clarified that its Smith-Lever extension and Hatch research funds are part of the UA system’s separate budget and that the state matched about $6.2 million in federal extension funding last year. The committee then moved to the Department of Corrections. It approved G1, transferring 51 positions to the secretary’s office to activate a recidivism program, with an estimated cost of about $4 million. Staff then began walking through the department’s FY27 budget, noting an increase of about $8 million for administration and shared services, including a $170,000 sex-offender assessment appropriation moved under Act 723 of 2025 and roughly $6 million more for medical contracts. Questions on the Corrections budget had just begun when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• And historically, we've allocated the marginal costs for growth, We've allocated the marginal costs for
• We've not had a higher education bond in 20 years, Mr. Chair.
• We would generate $300 million to $600 million through our bond program.
• No, we have existing bond funding that is supporting facilities.
• It's all bond through smaller bonds that you do. Well, I think there are some.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held an oversight hearing on the California State University system covering enrollment, core operations, Title IX/civil rights, and basic needs. The Department of Finance said the Governor’s 2026-27 budget does not change CSU enrollment targets from the prior year and proposes a 5% ongoing General Fund increase for core operations as the final year of the compact. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended a lower resident undergraduate enrollment target than the Governor’s proposal, separate funding for enrollment growth rather than folding it into base, a smaller or no base increase tied more closely to inflation, earmarking some base funds for capital renewal, retiring deferred payments, and avoiding new multi-year compact commitments. CSU said enrollment has rebounded for three straight years, but growth is uneven across campuses, with several Northern California campuses still facing structural declines tied to demographics and community college pipelines. CSU described a multi-year reallocation plan shifting about 10,000 FTE and $89 million in ongoing funding toward higher-demand campuses, plus $40 million in one-time support, and said seven campuses submitted turnaround plans aimed at recovering enrollment over the next several years. The system highlighted strategies such as dual enrollment, guaranteed admission pathways with community colleges, outreach to high school students, retention and advising efforts, and new degree models for working adults and military-connected students. Members raised questions about how campus targets are set, whether the May Board of Trustees discussion will address a systemwide enrollment framework, and how CSU will manage future deficits if projected out-year funding does not materialize. On core operations and facilities, CSU said it faces about $320 million in mandatory cost increases in 2026-27 and is pursuing shared services, procurement consolidation, campus administrative sharing, and program redesigns to reduce costs. CSU and the LAO emphasized the system’s large deferred maintenance backlog, estimated at $8.6 billion, and discussed whether CSU’s bond/debt capacity is sufficient to address it; CSU requested up to $1.1 billion for deferred maintenance, while the administration did not propose new funding. The committee also heard CSU’s annual Title IX and civil rights update: CSU said it has implemented 15 of 16 State Auditor recommendations, has dedicated Title IX coordinators at every campus, is using a systemwide case management dashboard, and is piloting centralized investigations at five campuses. Finally, on basic needs, the Governor maintained current funding levels for food assistance/basic needs, rapid rehousing, and mental health. CSU reported heavy use of food pantries, CalFresh support, emergency housing, and counseling services, while warning that federal changes to CalFresh and related funding could make it harder to serve students in need.

Transcript Highlights:

• It goes back to the tramway, where we had 16 million allocated, I guess, through a bond for that project
• It goes back to the tramway, where we had 16 million allocated, I guess, through a bond for that project
• 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
• 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:

• So, um increasing bonding revenue.
• um we don't bond trucks for the highway. um we don't bond trucks for the highway.
• bonded. Am I am I understanding you? bonded. Am I am I understanding you?
• Uh this and will be bonded as such.
• fulfill some of that allocation. fulfill some of that allocation. are<01:59:23.920> are<01

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 139 is the $135 million allocation toward the housing trust fund.
• Set it aside, bond it out. Set that money aside, grab the $50 million.
• Better than aside, bonded out. Set it aside. Bonds it out. Set that money aside, grab the $50.
• So we, I'm trying to remember if we didn't bond at all. I think we did not bond that year.
• Didn't bond at all. I think we did not bond that year.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the the met council regional bonding.
• /c><00:36:01.839> is the other allocation requirement is the other allocation requirement is found
• <00:44:40.640> of modification in the allocation of modification in the allocation of searchcharge
• that authorization uh of um of bonding that authorization uh of um of bonding for<01:10:23.840><
• <01:15:04.480> the um previous attempts to allocate the um previous attempts to allocate the

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The legislature has allocated over $24 million for equipment and upgrades since 2023.
• About 30 percent are from severance tax bonds, $1.3 billion.
• And then general obligation bonds make up about 11 percent of the overall balance.
• in severance tax bonds are considered authorized but unissued.
• Us, not just the Colonias infrastructure allocations, but in any of these handouts.

Transcript Highlights:

• Last, but certainly not least, is the $100 million in housing infrastructure bonds.
• <00:13:58.639> Housing housing infrastructure bonds.
• Housing housing infrastructure bonds.
• :14:00.399> state's infrastructure bonds are the state's infrastructure bonds are the state's
• Um, it's often out the door within days upon its quarterly allocation.

Keywords: 1183, house