Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, on line 72, the H.A.C. scenario earmarks $1.5 million for the Black Bilingual Multicultural
• It was not specifically earmarked for a purpose, but it was intentional because there was a concern that
• But there is an earmark in there that, for $59 million of the SEG, says this is for other educational
• And so this scenario now reaffirms that original commitment and earmarks the agency operating budget
• That original commitment earmarks the agency operating budget, increases it to account for the Hispanic

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The meeting began as an informal education budget work group focused on reviewing a revised House Appropriations and Finance Committee scenario and flagging concerns rather than taking votes. Staff outlined the main changes from the LFC recommendation, including moving the statewide student information system appropriation, adding funding for the Black, Bilingual, Multicultural and Hispanic Education Act, universal school meals overrun costs, an evidence-based CTE pilot with a 50% local match, STEM network funding, wellness room pilots, Martinez-Yazzie action plan items, and changes to innovation zone and out-of-school time appropriations. A separate handout on the seven-year CTE pilot explained spending patterns, reversions, and possible federal maintenance-of-effort concerns if the state continues funding beyond a true pilot. Members then debated CTE extensively, with several arguing it improves attendance, graduation, and career readiness and should be sustained or expanded, especially in rural areas, while staff and others emphasized that much of the current funding has gone to general operational costs rather than intentional program design and that regional or matched funding models may be more effective. Members also discussed STEM and math initiatives, the need for more industry involvement, and whether the proposed match requirements would be too burdensome for smaller districts and BIE schools. The discussion also covered the Black, Hispanic, and Multilingual Education Acts and the Martinez-Yazzie lawsuit. Some members stressed that the acts should be explicitly named in the budget language and not merely implied, while staff said the scenario reaffirms prior commitments by building the costs into agency operating budgets. Members raised concerns about charter school hold-harmless funding, declining enrollment, and the need to align spending with the needs of at-risk students. The work group ended the education portion without any votes, with staff noting they would incorporate the feedback and return with clarifications, including on CTE funding, the educational acts, and the charter hold-harmless item. The meeting then shifted to the child well-being and early childhood work group, where staff presented a revised Early Childhood Education and Care Department scenario. The proposal moved money toward child care assistance and early pre-K, kept the FIT program funding level unchanged, and used a mix of trust fund, TANF, federal, and operating-budget adjustments to close part of the gap between the executive and LFC recommendations. Members questioned the policy direction, especially the shift toward infant and toddler care and pre-K expansion, the impact on school-age child care, and the implications for continuity of care and provider costs. Staff explained that the scenario prioritizes younger children and at-risk families, includes language for a wage and career ladder, and would require legislation to raise the early childhood trust fund distribution cap from 500 to 525. Members also discussed a separate proposed CYFD pilot bill (HB 65), which would be distinct from ECECD funding. No votes were taken, and staff said they would return with more cost information on full pre-K plus wraparound care. A final work group reviewed C2 and Department of Information Technology-related appropriations. Staff compared the LFC and executive recommendations for new funding and reauthorizations, noting that the LFC generally limited new projects while the executive funded more. Members discussed several IT modernization requests, including the Secretary of State’s voter registration and election management systems, the Spaceport Authority, Game and Fish, the State Engineer’s WATERS system, ECECD’s FitKids and EPIC replacement discovery, and Aging and Long-Term Services’ enterprise system modernization. The main themes were whether to fund planning versus full replacement, how to avoid piecemeal spending, and whether new systems should wait for incoming leadership. The Secretary of State’s office said its system is nearing end of life and the planning funds would help prepare a realistic replacement request, while other agencies described aging infrastructure, cybersecurity risks, and the need for modernization. The work group did not vote on any of the items and ended with staff noting additional follow-up on funding needs and reauthorization details.

Transcript Highlights:

• Sixty percent of our slots are allocated or earmarked for families who have a demonstrated need.
• would be yes, we follow a sliding fee scale, but I can only speak to my nonprofit. are allocated or earmarked
• for families are allocated or earmarked for families who<00:09:59.920> have<00:10:00.040>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• In 2023, 1.1 billion in state appropriations went directly to an earmarked nonprofit organization, and
• c><00:01:10.680> an Appropriations went directly to an Appropriations went directly to an earmarked
• <00:01:11.280> nonprofit<00:01:12.240> organization<00:01:13.240> and earmarked
• nonprofit organization and earmarked nonprofit organization and they<00:01:13.560> have<00:01:

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a lot of money on the books that's invested, and a lot of that's earmarked for reserves.
• There's a lot of money on the books that's invested, and a lot of that's earmarked for reserves.
• There's a lot of money on the books that's invested, and a lot of that's earmarked for reserves.
• There's a lot of money on the books that's invested, and a lot of that's earmarked for reserves.
• There's a lot of money on the books that's invested, and a lot of that's earmarked for reserves.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Committee on Public Safety met on January 31, 2025, and first heard House Bill 1062, a housekeeping measure relating to the Hawaii Air National Guard. Testimony in support came from representatives of the Adjutant General and other National Guard witnesses. A member raised a technical question about language allowing the Guard to hold the rank authorized by the Department of the Air Force, and the response was that the bill should not require additional HR language; no vote was taken. The committee then heard House Bill 674, which would authorize allowances for TRICARE dental and vision coverage for Hawaii National Guard personnel ordered to active duty for more than 30 days. The Department of Defense supported the bill through Brigadier General Ross, Director of Joint Staff, and Terry Heiti also testified in support. There were no questions or action taken on the measure. House Bill 652, relating to veterans’ rights and benefits and regulating compensation for advice or assistance on veterans’ benefits, drew the most discussion. The Veterans of Foreign Wars Department of Hawaii supported the bill, arguing it would protect veterans from illegal or exploitative practices and noting its own service to more than 2,000 veterans in fiscal year 2024. Opposition came from the National Association for Veterans Rights and Veteran Benefits Guide, which argued the bill would restrict access to needed services and that some for-profit providers operate legally and should not be barred. Committee members questioned the scope of the bill, accreditation requirements, and whether nonprofit or pro bono services would be affected. A Department of Defense veteran services official said veterans can be vulnerable to exploitation and that some legal fee arrangements can be abusive, while also noting pro bono options exist. The committee did not reach a decision on the bill during the excerpt. The committee also began hearing House Bill 1058, which would create a veteran cemetery board within the Office of Veteran Services to help state veteran cemeteries comply with federal standards. The Office of Veteran Services and Terry Heiti testified in support. Members asked about the board’s membership, timeline, and consultant selection, and were told the working group was still in an organizational stage and no construction timeline had been set. The final measure discussed was House Bill 503, which would appropriate funds for a consultant to evaluate locations and designs for a Hawaii First Responders Memorial. The Department of Accounting and General Services supported the bill, and testimony in support was received from county and city officials, UPW Hawaii, and individuals. Members asked about the working group, timeline, and budget, and were told the project was still in early planning; no final action was taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's just a late arrival on request for earmarks and a technical clarification that came in from the
• Next item, there was an added earmark for an amphitheater and cultural center in Winston County.
• And then, we next had a new earmark for livestock judging.
• The gifted students earmarked on line 268. That'll move over to the raise act.
• Turning on the page, page 12, we've talked about the collapsing of the earmarks at Alabama State.

Bills: SCR 22, SB 53, SB 204, SB 266, SB 268, SB 291, SB 292, SB 296, SB 304, SB 305, SB 413, SB 447, SB 455, SB 462, SB 493, SB 504, SB 519, SB 522, SB 532, SB 541, SB 667, SB 670, SB 673, SB 681, SB 687, SB 711, SB 746, SB 765, SB 783, SB 827, SB 850, SB 860, SB 888, SB 897, SB 901, SB 927, SB 955, SB 963, SB 984, SB 989, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1023, SB 1033, SB 1058, SB 1062, SB 1101, SB 1119, SB 1172, SB 1173, SB 1215, SB 1220, SB 1227, SB 1228, SB 1229, SB 1238, SB 1239, SB 1245, SB 1248, SB 1254, SB 1259, SB 1273, SB 1277, SB 1302, SB 1332, SB 1341, SB 1346, SB 1350, SB 1352, SB 1353, SB 1355, SB 1358, SB 1370, SB 1371, SB 1378, SB 1403, SB 1404, SB 1415, SB 1437, SB 1448, SB 1450, SB 1464, SB 1493, SB 1494, SB 1537, SB 1566, SB 1569, SB 1589, SB 1598, SB 1644, SB 1709, SB 1719, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1810, SB 1841, SB 1895, SB 1930, SB 2039, SB 2289, SB 2312, SCR 1, SCR 6, SCR 27, SCR 32, SB 2232, SJR 4, SJR 27, SJR 40, SB 22, SB 33, SB 36, SB 37, SB 38, SB 95, SB 209, SB 249, SB 311, SB 365, SB 605, SB 618, SB 619, SB 732, SB 745, SB 760, SB 762, SB 779, SB 783, SB 785, SB 819, SB 871, SB 883, SB 1057, SB 1059, SB 1067, SB 1080, SB 1171, SB 1210, SB 1255, SB 1265, SB 1271, SB 1313, SB 1314, SB 1316, SB 1318, SB 1320, SB 1332, SB 1365, SB 1426, SB 1470, SB 1494, SB 1541, SB 1559, SB 1567, SB 1592, SB 1596, SB 1598, SB 1677, SB 1706, SB 1750, SB 1758, SB 1786, SB 1791, SB 1810, SB 1818, SB 1841, SB 1851, SB 1871, SB 1967, SB 2024, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 2365, SB 2420, SB 2425, SJR 36, SJR 50, SJR 4, SJR 40, SJR 27, SJR 39, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 39, SCR 38, SCR 37, SCR 1, SCR 27, SCR 32, SCR 42, SCR 6, SB 779, SB 1470, SB 765, SB 62, SB 666, SB 888, SB 687, SB 847, SB 1248, SB 504, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 304, SB 1023, SB 204, SB 670, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 1539, SB 447, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 1215, SB 1302, SB 583, SB 673, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 955, SB 957, SB 541, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 53, SB 1352, SB 785, SB 1450, SB 1502, SB 1566, SB 1062, SB 711, SB 746, SB 1404, SB 1448, SB 507, SB 1026, SB 1349, SB 1355, SB 1433, SB 1434, SB 1596, SB 1403, SB 667, SB 1059, SB 1567, SB 310, SB 311, SB 505, SB 1210, SB 264, SB 1358, SB 1364, SB 1569, SB 1376, SB 1228, SB 519, SB 1350, SB 462, SB 827, SB 1585, SB 1273, SB 927, SB 1227, SB 1229, SB 1353, SB 1464, SB 1709, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1772, SB 1841, SB 2016, SB 1173, SB 1163, SB 996, SB 1370, SB 1101, SB 860, SB 993, SB 1537, SB 1332, SB 963, SB 493, SB 984, SB 619, SB 1122, SB 455, SB 522, SB 1057, SB 1239, SB 1254, SB 1255, SB 1259, SB 1341, SB 1877, SB 1277, SB 732, SB 731, SB 268, SB 1589, SB 397, SB 1058, SB 1930, SB 532, SB 508, SB 292, SB 291, SB 901, SB 1333, SB 1436, SB 1494, SB 964, SB 1378, SB 2312, SB 1719, SB 287, SB 2143, SB 1245, SB 261, SB 1247, SB 1882, SB 618, SB 38, SB 393, SB 1371, SB 1365, SB 2243, SB 2226, SB 2039, SB 1919, SB 1895, SB 1598, SB 1493, SB 1810, SB 1791, SB 1706, SB 1644, SB 1238, SB 783, SB 22, SB 651, SB 897, SB 1080, SB 745, SB 826, SB 989, SB 1320, SB 1437, SB 2289, SB 1171, SB 1079, SB 1243, SB 1504, SB 1851, SB 1879, SB 2237, SB 1257, SB 2034, SB 1522, SB 883, SB 249, SB 1318, SB 1151, SB 596, SB 1191, SB 226, SB 570, SB 870, SB 991, SB 60, SB 365, SB 1067, SB 1786, SB 326, SB 1401, SB 1592, SB 1728, SB 1265, SB 586, SB 529, SB 217, SB 209, SB 1923, SB 1559, SB 1839, SB 387, SB 1874, SB 1872, SB 1873, SB 1921, SB 1883, SB 1677, SB 95, SB 1620, SB 1838, SB 2024, SB 2429, SB 1999, SB 511, SB 2309, SB 2166, SB 871, SB 510, SB 33, SB 2420, SB 1860, SB 1541, SB 1316, SB 1314, SB 1313, SB 1426, SB 1398, SB 1869, SB 1750, SB 1871, SB 36, SB 855, SB 1233, SB 760, SB 2425, SB 2037, SB 1758, SB 1759, SB 2365, SB 1924, SB 762, SB 1271, SB 1818, SB 605, SB 1405, SB 1762, SB 1968, SB 1977, SB 2077, SB 2148, SB 2321, SB 1967, SB 1662, SB 1663, SB 2124, SB 2204, SB 1855, SB 863, SB 37, SB 2232, SB 819, SB 2078, SB 2252, SB 1962, SB 2253, SB 825, SB 1577, SB 1184, SB 2018, SB 2206, SB 1901, SB 1030, SB 2368, SB 1963, SB 1960, SB 1643, SB 1625, SB 1299, SB 841, SB 668, SB 584, SB 231, SB 2411, SB 1085, SB 2431, SB 2231, SB 1490, SB 530, SB 34, SB 1261, SB 552, SB 1099, SB 1646, SB 2180, SB 1804, SB 1937, SB 1936, SB 2569, SB 1372, SB 1208, SB 1124, SB 1506, SB 1806, SB 1868, SB 2361, SB 2314, SB 769, SB 1409, SB 2122, SB 434, SB 1214, SB 1951, SB 2183, SB 2046, SB 1667, SB 1870, SB 1727, SB 2405, SB 2127, SB 1975, SB 1760, SB 1734, SB 1335, SB 2066, SB 2129, SB 2246, SB 2439, SJR 4, SJR 40, SB 36, SB 249, SB 311, SB 365, SB 745, SB 785, SB 871, SB 1057, SB 1067, SB 1171, SB 1255, SB 1265, SB 1271, SB 1313, SB 1316, SB 1318, SB 1365, SB 1426, SB 1559, SB 1592, SB 1677, SB 1706, SB 1786, SB 1871, SB 1967, SB 2148, SB 38, SB 95, SB 760, SB 883, SB 1059, SB 1210, SR 384, SR 385, SR 389, SB 38, SB 95, SB 760, SB 779, SB 883, SB 1059, SB 1210, SB 1470, SCR 1, SCR 6, SCR 22, SCR 27, SCR 32, SB 53, SB 204, SB 266, SB 268, SB 291, SB 292, SB 296, SB 304, SB 305, SB 413, SB 447, SB 455, SB 462, SB 493, SB 504, SB 519, SB 522, SB 532, SB 541, SB 667, SB 670, SB 673, SB 681, SB 687, SB 711, SB 746, SB 765, SB 783, SB 827, SB 850, SB 860, SB 888, SB 897, SB 901, SB 927, SB 955, SB 963, SB 984, SB 989, SB 993, SB 996, SB 1023, SB 1033, SB 1058, SB 1062, SB 1101, SB 1119, SB 1172, SB 1173, SB 1215, SB 1220, SB 1227, SB 1228, SB 1229, SB 1238, SB 1239, SB 1245, SB 1248, SB 1254, SB 1259, SB 1273, SB 1277, SB 1302, SB 1332, SB 1341, SB 1346, SB 1350, SB 1352, SB 1353, SB 1355, SB 1358, SB 1370, SB 1371, SB 1378, SB 1403, SB 1404, SB 1415, SB 1437, SB 1448, SB 1450, SB 1464, SB 1493, SB 1494, SB 1537, SB 1566, SB 1569, SB 1589, SB 1598, SB 1644, SB 1709, SB 1719, SB 1729, SB 1733, SB 1744, SB 1841, SB 1895, SB 1930, SB 2039, SB 2232, SB 2289, SB 2312, SB 1772, SB 1810, SB 1540, SB 2660, SB 1540, SB 2660

Keywords: SCR 22, Senate Concurrent Resolution 22, official state gun, state symbol, cannon, artillery, Texas Revolution, Battle of Gonzales, Come and Take It, Alamo, San Jacinto, Twin Sisters, Sam Houston, Angelina Eberly, Texas history, historic weapon, commemorative resolution, state emblem, Texas heritage, Gonzales Memorial Museum

Transcript Highlights:

• And is it preferred that we do it through this earmark process or through the DNR?
• But it is, yeah, they don't do earmarks, I think, just because it's so small and it would be hard to
• We also unexpectedly received a $500,000 earmark via congressionally directed spending.
• <00:45:51.080> via<00:45:51.440> congressionally<00:45:52.280> directed earmark
• via congressionally directed earmark via congressionally directed spending. spending. spending.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are earmarks, not really core operating program issues. We've cleaned out a lot of earmarks.
• We've cleaned out a lot of earmarks.
• Um, there's some earmarks that have not been eliminated, but reduced.
• So, that money comes out before it enters the budgeting process, effectively an earmark.
• <01:10:02.719> um process, effectively an earmark. um process, effectively an earmark. um

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <02:04:12.960> for money is being earmarked for money is being earmarked for education.<02
• > the<02:04:18.639> children's money earmarked for the children's money earmarked for the
• This isn't money earmarked<02:04:24.800> for<02:04:24.880> the<02:04:25.040> wealthy
• This is money earmarked for the wealthy.
• This is money earmarked<02:04:27.040> for<02:04:27.360> parents<02:04:28.320> who

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met in executive session on a bill concerning school meal access and reimbursement. The bill would address local school districts’ responsibility to provide meals during school hours, reimburse schools for meals served at no cost, and make an appropriation. The committee first moved to retain the bill, with supporters saying it was complex, had uncertain fiscal impacts, and should be considered alongside other related meals bills. Opponents argued the committee already had enough information, that the bill served a small number of students at relatively low cost, and that delaying action would harm children who need food to learn. The committee also heard from Tim Roar, a Keene school business administrator and co-designer of the bill, who explained that the proposal was intended to be an opt-in program for districts, with rulemaking to set participation requirements. He said the bill was meant to target aid to students between 175% and 200% of poverty, reduce bad meal debt, and avoid spending taxpayer money on families who could afford to pay. He estimated the state cost at about $250,000 in year one, with local taxpayer costs around $8,500 for Keene, and said some districts already have systems for online applications while others do not. Committee members questioned him about meal debt, online application software costs, and how districts handle students who reach debt limits. Roar said districts still feed students who are hungry, but use other resources and family outreach when meal debt is capped, and he argued that parents should be responsible for providing lunch when they can afford it. Other members pushed back, saying they had seen students go hungry and that teachers sometimes pay for lunches themselves. One member noted the bill would increase eligibility, make it easier to apply, strengthen personal responsibility, and was not a mandate. The discussion ended without a recorded final vote in the excerpt, though the retain motion remained the central action under debate.

Transcript Highlights:

• restricted-use pesticide issue in the bill because it has fiscal costs, and they also did not provide any earmarks
• He said that traditionally, in prior years, there would have been a number of earmarks for nonprofits
• not<00:10:20.800> uh<00:10:21.040> provide<00:10:21.360> any<00:10:21.600> earmarks
• <00:10:22.160> to not uh provide any earmarks to not uh provide any earmarks to nonprofits
• see<00:10:35.600> a<00:10:35.839> number<00:10:36.079> of<00:10:36.720> earmarks

Bills: HF2446, HF2563, HF2444

Keywords: agriculture finance, broadband development, Department of Agriculture, Board of Animal Health, Agricultural Utilization Research Institute, Office of Broadband Development, food safety, food handler license, cottage food, home processed food, livestock dealer, meat packing company, milk marketer, milk marketing license, grain buyer, grain storage, beginning farmer, emerging farmer, farm down payment assistance, livestock investment grant

Transcript Highlights:

• All this does is we know how earmarks are in our own budget.
• Takes the earmark away from the jail, but lets them use that money for law enforcement functions.
• This does is we know how earmarks are in our own budget.
• Takes the earmark away from the jail, but lets them use that money for law enforcement functions.

Bills: HB91, HB95, HB255, HB318, HB91, HB95, HB255, HB318

Keywords: county housing authority, public housing, housing authority, affordable housing, low-income housing, mixed-use development, community facilities, subsidiary, affiliate, public corporation, municipal tax exemption, deed tax, mortgage tax, probate fee, bond financing, housing project, urban redevelopment, rural housing, public-private partnership, eminent domain

Transcript Highlights:

• . $30 million earmarked, or perhaps not earmarked, but destined for Lincoln County.
• So again, it earmarks that money in the department.
• So you're earmarking our resources, you're ensuring that there's a more inclusive process, and you're

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• My point is that we never would have been competitive for these larger federal grants and earmarks without
• This $5.5 million earmark will ensure continued momentum and measurable impact for a program which, as
• So again, we ask that a $5.5 million earmark for the Healthy Soils Program be included in line item 2000
• We really want to see that $5.5 million earmark so that organizations like mine can rely on that funding
• We support the addition of the 5.5 million earmark in line item 2,0007082 for the Healthy Soils Program

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:

• We are earmarked to and the DA's office. We are earmarked to and the DA's office.
• We are earmarked to only use it for capital construction and only use it for capital construction and
• value of this tax and the full well the value of this tax and the fact that it was specifically earmarked
• fact that it was specifically earmarked fact that it was specifically earmarked to county school systems

Bills: HB258, HB324, HB333, SB270, HB258, HB324, HB333, SB270

Keywords: primary election, election calendar, off-presidential year, May primary, second Tuesday in May, fourth Tuesday in May, runoff primary, special primary, presidential primary, election administration, candidate filing, ballot access, political parties, county election officials, state election law, Alabama elections, sheriffs, term of office, Alabama law, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• office and have somebody reach out to them directly on this one, especially if there's a pre-existing earmark
• depending on what funding came in. ...to them directly on this one, especially if there's a pre-existing earmark
• So we will reach out to them and get back on that specific earmark and that project.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, State Assets, and Capital Expenditures held its first public hearing on House Bill 4257, a transportation bonding bill. The administration testified in support, describing the bill as a $1.185 billion authorization: $300 million for Chapter 90 municipal road funding and $885 million for statewide transportation capital programs. Officials said the bill would increase municipal aid by 50%, with $200 million distributed under the traditional Chapter 90 formula and $100 million based solely on road mileage to better help rural communities. They also highlighted $500 million for bridge and pavement lifecycle asset management, $200 million for culverts and small bridges, and $185 million for congestion, safety, ADA, sidewalk, and multimodal improvements. Committee members asked about how municipalities would apply, how the road-mile formula would affect rural towns, and how the bill would interact with federal funding uncertainty and debt financing. Administration witnesses explained that projects would be administered through MassDOT district offices and Grant Central, that the bill would not backfill rescinded federal funds, and that the proposal would likely use special obligation bonds backed by Fair Share revenues to reduce pressure on the Commonwealth’s general obligation debt limit. Members also pressed the administration on the shift from general obligation to special obligation financing and on whether the Chapter 90 increase keeps pace with inflation. Administration officials said the special obligation structure would be credit-rated separately and was intended to expand available capital without affecting the GO bond cap, while acknowledging that the Commonwealth’s debt portfolio would grow. They said the Chapter 90 increase would roughly restore purchasing power lost since 2012, though construction inflation has outpaced general inflation. Several members and witnesses emphasized the importance of the road-mile formula for rural communities and the need for technical assistance for small towns. The Massachusetts Municipal Association testified in strong support of the bill, calling Chapter 90 and the new infrastructure authorizations critical for cities and towns facing federal uncertainty and rising costs. The Massachusetts Aggregate and Asphalt Pavement Association also supported the bill, citing the importance of the funding for road and bridge work, the construction season, and the industry’s economic impact. A committee member asked about asphalt price inflation, and the witness said liquid asphalt costs rose sharply after COVID, including increases of around 20% in some years. At the end of the hearing, the chair said members would receive a poll by email to move the bill out quickly, and the committee then voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• And uh if I remember correctly, we did this last year with earmarks and we took all we had several earmark
• did this last remember correctly, we did this last year<00:43:27.119> with<00:43:27.280> earmarks
• > we<00:43:28.319> took<00:43:28.800> all<00:43:28.960> we year with earmarks
• and we took all we year with earmarks and we took all we had<00:43:29.280> several<00:43:29.520
• earmark things said no, had several earmark things said no, they're<00:43:30.560> going<00:43

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• you may not know this answer, but I assume DCCA has some sort of special funding or some sort of earmark
• The other counties may choose to use the half percent surcharge if it is not already earmarked for their
• And what we want to earmarked for rail.
• <01:51:03.840> for<01:51:04.000> their if it is not already earmarked for their if
• it is not already earmarked for their county<01:51:04.760> projects.

Bills: SB2908, SB2671, SB3085, SB2907, SB2353, SB2074, SB2360, SB2057, SB3251, SB2354, SB3001

Keywords: permit processing, permitting reform, county permits, development permits, building permits, land use, construction delays, housing development, infrastructure development, county workforce, differential pay, salary incentive, performance bonus, recruitment and retention, expedited hiring, vacancy rates, permit backlog, government modernization, county mayor, county council

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several Senate bills, with most measures drawing broad support and a few generating significant opposition or policy questions. SB 2908 SD1 and SB 2671 SD1 were taken up first; both appeared to have majority support, with SB 2908 receiving seven in support, one in opposition, and one comment, and SB 2671 receiving five in support and two comments. SB 3085 SD2, related to film industry operations, drew 11 supporters and no opposition. Georgia Skinner explained that the bill would streamline the approval timeline for productions by reducing delays tied to Land Board review, and she said DLNR supported the effort. Committee members asked about the need for the change and the relationship between the film studio, DLNR, and the approval process. The committee then discussed SB 2907 SD1, which would create an Office of Marine Affairs. Testimony was largely supportive, including from DLNR, HTDC, the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity, ocean industry representatives, and others. The governor’s office supported the bill’s intent but objected to placing the office within the Office of the Governor, urging instead that it be housed at HTDC. HTDC said it was willing and excited to take on the work and described ongoing stakeholder engagement. Members asked about the rationale for the placement and the long-term structure of the office. SB 2353 SD2, concerning the Aloha Stadium district and billboard/naming-rights issues, drew strong opposition overall, with four in support, 23 in opposition, and one comment. Andrew Pereira of the Stadium Authority argued the measure could generate revenue to help maintain and operate the stadium and said the district would remain self-contained; he also emphasized that the development would respect the character of the area. The committee then heard SB 2074 SD1, which had five in support and 26 in opposition; only one support testimony from the Carpenters was heard before the discussion moved on. Finally, SB 2360 SD1, an enterprise zones measure, received 14 supportive testimonies and two comments. Testimony focused on updating the program for modern business models, especially e-commerce and direct-to-consumer sales, while committee members questioned whether the program overlaps with higher tax burdens and whether businesses receiving subsidies should be monitored for job retention after graduation from the program.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also note that the House bill finds money for lots of roadway earmarks, including earmarks for projects
• , even though there are much bigger safety issues at other locations not receiving earmark funding.
• <00:39:19.599> lots<00:39:19.839> of<00:39:20.000> roadway<00:39:20.480> earmarks
• , money for lots of roadway earmarks, money for lots of roadway earmarks, including<00:39:21.520>
• earmarks for projects, even including earmarks for projects, even though<00:39:23.599> there<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill cuts safety in Greater Minnesota for earmarks in the metro.
• This bill cuts safety in Greater Minnesota for earmarks in the metro.
• I don't like it when earmarked projects are happening at the federal level.
• I don't like it when earmarked projects are happening at the federal level.
• I don't like it when earmarked projects are happening at the federal level.

Bills: HF2438

Keywords: transportation finance, transportation policy, MnDOT, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Department of Public Safety, Metropolitan Council, highway funding, trunk highway fund, county state-aid highway fund, municipal state-aid street fund, state aid roads, local roads, bridge funding, road construction, transit funding, passenger rail, freight rail, aviation, airport development, safe routes to school

Transcript Highlights:

• But Representative Wilson, when we get a specific earmark, it is our intention if we have the resources
• to fulfill those earmarks.
• ,<00:46:12.160> it<00:46:12.240> is um when we get a specific earmark, it is um when
• <00:46:16.000> I<00:46:16.040> mean,<00:46:16.240> we to fulfill those earmarks
• I mean, we to fulfill those earmarks.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:19 DCBS 00:01:58, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• them the authority to raise funds beyond what is needed for their day-to-day operations if it's earmarked
• them the authority to raise funds beyond what is needed for their day-to-day operations if it's earmarked
• them the authority to raise funds beyond what is needed for their day-to-day operations if it's earmarked
• <00:26:04.799> for<00:26:05.279> these<00:26:06.159> uh if it's earmarked for
• these uh if it's earmarked for these uh irrigation<00:26:07.440> infrastructure.

Bills: HB0078, HB0087, SF0070, SF0068, SF0017, SF0043

Keywords: forest health, grant program, state forester, wildfire prevention, environmental conservation, habitat improvement, water development, feasibility studies, appropriations, water management, rehabilitation, irrigation, public works, agricultural supply, municipal water, funding, maintenance projects, tax assessments, state law, forestry management