Transcript Highlights:

• the priorities is that the priority one on a project should match what the agency expects it to spend
• But ideally, the priority five is five times the amount of priority one if it's intended to be a five-year
• New priorities arise.
• to determine the priorities in their district and limit the projects in the bill to what the real priorities
• And then to make it even more confusing, the way the Priority 1 line of credit works is we assign a Priority

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held an informational hearing on the state capital outlay process, with Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration’s Office of Facilities Planning and Control (FPNC) presenting a detailed review of House Bill 2 and proposed improvements. They said FPNC administers about 54% of the bill, while other agencies administer the rest, and emphasized that the capital outlay program has improved significantly over the last few years, with project expenditures more than doubling due to better cash-flow management, staffing changes, and more efficient project administration. They also explained how the bill is structured by priorities, how the priority-one cash line of credit is capped and adjusted for construction inflation, and how the bill has grown into a much larger, longer-range plan than a true five-year program, especially on the non-state side. A major theme was that the bill contains too many dormant, legacy, and low-priority projects, which creates false expectations and ties up funding. Committee members pressed the presenters on culture change, third-party project management, staffing shortages, and the use of technology and statutory interpretation to speed projects without sacrificing compliance. Husser and Baker said they had reduced internal bureaucracy, used staff augmentation because of hiring difficulties, delegated smaller projects to agencies when appropriate, and improved cash-flow analysis so projects can move forward with less money up front. They also discussed overappropriations, dormant projects, and the need to reappropriate unused funds to projects that can actually spend them. The presenters offered several recommendations and considerations: limit the number and size of new projects, reduce scope creep, require more regular endorsement of long-running projects, consider caps on priority-five funding, impose time limits and reporting requirements on non-state grant projects, and possibly require non-state entities to escrow or otherwise demonstrate their match earlier. They also suggested bundling related projects together, expanding that approach beyond the current pilot, and improving transparency by showing full project funding history and the first year each project appeared in the bill. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with members generally supportive of the efficiency reforms while also raising concerns about false hope, dormant projects, and the need for clearer expectations and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• So one of the initiatives under this priority is our reputation.
• We put together our One SUS priority when we came up with this.
• This priority Our third priority in our strategic plan is operational excellence.
• Our fourth priority in our SUS 30 plan is world-class talent.
• Our fourth priority in our SUS 30 plan is world-class talent.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education heard a presentation on the State University System’s new strategic plan, SUS 30, and its legislative budget request. University officials described the plan’s five priorities: One SUS collaboration, elevating student success, operational excellence, world-class talent, and innovative research and economic development. They highlighted Florida’s continued status as the top higher education system in the nation, low tuition, strong graduation outcomes, rising median wages for graduates, and expanded use of the My Florida Future website to help students and families compare degree outcomes and earnings. Members asked for follow-up information on programs of strategic emphasis, mental health and social work workforce needs, wage data over time, and how the system supports innovation moving toward commercialization. The committee also discussed campus safety, prompted in part by recent events at FSU. System officials said universities and the Florida College System recently held a safety summit to share best practices on building security, threat assessment, and coordination with law enforcement, and they agreed to provide a report back to the committee after the Board of Governors reviews recommendations in November. Senators also raised questions about Pell student support, first-generation student success, and whether liberal arts graduates’ earnings catch up over time. Officials said Pell students are tracked through performance-based funding metrics and that the system’s accountability plans will continue to emphasize access and completion. A separate update covered line funding for nursing and health care partnerships. Officials said the $6 million appropriation was fully subscribed through 24 proposals from all 10 nursing programs, supporting scholarships, faculty recruitment, internships, simulation, and licensure preparation. They reported over 1,900 new nursing graduates, more than 200 new student slots, over 300 scholarships, and a 92% NCLEX pass rate. Senators asked about expanding eligibility for the program, and staff said that issue would be revisited this year. The Board of Governors’ legislative budget request totaled $634.5 million and included $295 million for performance-based funding institutional investment, a request to restore and increase the state investment portion to $400 million, $125 million for preeminence funding, $100 million for faculty recruitment and retention, $6.4 million for UF/IFAS extension workload, and $3.1 million for State Fire Marshal inspections. The chair noted that resources are limited and that difficult budget decisions lie ahead. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• the priorities is that the priority one on a project should match what the agency expects it to spend
• But ideally, the priority five is five times the amount of priority one if it's intended to be a five-year
• New priorities arise.
• Should we limit the priority five to the five times the priority one limit, right?
• the real priorities are.

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's a huge priority for our board.
• So one of the initiatives under this priority is our reputation.
• Our third priority in our strategic plan is operational excellence. This priority...
• Our fourth priority in our SUS 30 plan is world-class talent.
• Our fourth priority in our SUS 30 plan is world-class talent.

Summary: The committee heard a presentation on the State University System’s new strategic plan, SUS 30, from Emily Sykes and later the system’s legislative budget request from Sarah Denagie. The strategic plan centers on five priorities: One SUS collaboration, elevating student success, operational excellence, world-class talent, and innovative research and economic development. Testimony highlighted Florida’s continued status as the nation’s top higher education system, record rankings, improved four-year graduation rates, higher median graduate wages, strong licensure pass rates, and expanded focus on research commercialization and workforce alignment. Senators asked about programs of strategic emphasis, mental health and teacher workforce needs, use of the My Florida Future wage data tool, support for first-generation and Pell students, and the role of liberal arts degrees. The system said it would provide follow-up information, including the full strategic-emphasis list and a report on campus safety best practices after a recent summit following the FSU shooting. The committee also received an update on line funding for nursing and health care partnerships. Officials said the $6 million appropriation was fully subscribed through 24 proposals from all 10 nursing programs, supporting scholarships, faculty recruitment, internships, simulation, and expanded nursing capacity. They reported more than 1,900 new nursing graduates, over 200 new student slots, more than 300 scholarships, and a 92% NCLEX pass rate. Senators asked about expanding eligibility for the program, and staff indicated that would be examined this year. For the legislative budget request, the Board of Governors asked for $634.5 million total, including $295 million to maintain the institutional performance-based funding base, $400 million for the state investment portion of performance-based funding, $125 million for preeminence funding, $100 million for faculty recruitment and retention, $6.4 million for UF/IFAS extension workload, and $3.1 million for state fire marshal inspections. The chair noted that resources are limited and that difficult budget decisions will be required. No votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• dollars, you have to make priorities. dollars, you have to make priorities. and<00:07:50.560>
• You have to make priorities to make sure that the finite dollars that we have are going to priorities
• You have to make priorities. You no. You have to make priorities.
• And this might our priorities should be.
• And I think but it isn't a priority.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That was the priority. Good projects, but not the priority at the time.
• I think the question is, what are the relative priorities, and have the priorities in the past emphasized
• This is a huge priority for the Karuk Tribe.
• This is a huge priority for the Karuk Tribe.
• That's going to be our top priority. Thank you so much.

Summary: The subcommittee began by announcing a change in the agenda order, moving item 6 ahead of item 1 and then item 7, and noting there would be no votes taken on any items that day. Item 6 covered a proposed operational efficiencies control section for the Natural Resources Agency that would let multiple departments jointly fund landscape-scale or multi-jurisdictional projects and allow Finance to transfer climate bond funds to a lead state entity. The LAO said the proposal was reasonable but suggested the Legislature consider requiring summary notification on how it is used; Finance said it would consider that request. Item 7 focused on the 2026-27 biodiversity and nature-based solutions spending plan. Finance and the Wildlife Conservation Board described the climate bond funding for habitat restoration, wildlife crossings, public access, tribal nature-based solutions, and related work, including $111 million proposed for WCB and $30 million for Salton Sea habitat and public access projects. The LAO supported the overall approach but flagged the San Andreas Corridor Program as an area where the Legislature may want to specify geographic priorities. Members discussed the pace of Salton Sea work and whether the proposed projects would count toward disadvantaged community goals. Item 8 addressed Cal Fire’s aviation contract and staffing needs for wildfire response. Cal Fire said year-round fire activity, a larger and more complex aircraft fleet, and labor market pressures justified the proposed contract increase, including more mechanics, pilots, and maintenance support. The LAO recommended approval, saying the proposal addressed health and safety concerns. Members asked about contractor staffing, competition in the bidding process, and future technology for early fire detection and suppression. The committee then took up item 1 on golden mussel containment. Fish and Wildlife described the invasive species’ spread in the Delta, the task force and response framework, and a request for eight new positions funded by Prop. 4 to support control plans, outreach, monitoring, research, and coordination with partners and law enforcement. Members pressed the department on whether the state should fund more direct decontamination infrastructure and grants to local water managers, and on the realistic goal of containing the mussel. The chair and several members emphasized the urgency of the threat and requested an itemized breakdown of the $20 million request. The hearing then moved to a broader LAO overview of wildfire prevention and response funding, where the LAO summarized the state’s funding mix and warned that ongoing wildfire resilience funding will likely decline as one-time bond and GGRF funds are exhausted, prompting discussion of long-term funding options and the balance between prevention, suppression, and community hardening.

Transcript Highlights:

• what your priorities, I need to know what your priorities<01:24:32.560> are.
• look at slide two, that's the priority look at slide two, that's the priority listing.
• priorities four and five. Um I heard priorities four and five.
• highest priority with the pinkham shed. highest priority with the pinkham shed.
• That was priority number 11 in our department priority list, and the Connecticut Lakes was priority number

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We share your priority and a lot of focus on implementing these priorities.
• But obviously, transit has been a priority.
• And then again, to your priorities, these are shared priorities of the administration for these various
• , and making sure that we remember that we do have priorities, and that we do get to share those priorities
• , and making sure that we remember that we do have priorities, and that we do get to share those priorities

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard an overview of the May Revision from the Department of Finance and comments from the Legislative Analyst’s Office on the state’s overall budget condition and natural resources proposals. Finance said the May Revision keeps the budget balanced in 2026-27 and 2027-28, reduces the structural deficit, and includes major natural resources items such as Proposition 4 climate bond spending, including up to $125 million for the Golden Gate Fields acquisition, $23.2 million for wildlife refuge and wetland projects, $25 million for Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, $25 million for Bay-Delta environmental flows, $1 million for coexisting-with-wildlife work, and $2.5 million for cancer-risk research. The LAO said revenues remain strong but argued the budget still relies too heavily on reserves, recommended more savings and fewer new discretionary expenditures, and urged the Legislature to prioritize only urgent health and safety needs while planning for uncertainty in greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues. Members focused heavily on the Golden Gate Fields purchase, Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, the wildlife coexistence initiative, and cap-and-invest funding for transit. On Golden Gate Fields, agency officials said the property is a time-limited, once-in-a-generation opportunity, that the state’s contribution would help secure the acquisition, and that the land would ultimately transfer to East Bay Regional Park District, which would assume operations and maintenance. Officials said the site would be remediated by the current owner, the state would use deed restrictions to prevent commercial development, and the remaining purchase price would be covered by nonstate partners. On Healthy Rivers and Landscapes, Finance and the Natural Resources Agency said the $25 million would support scientific monitoring and early implementation of the Bay-Delta plan update, while the LAO questioned the timing and said the request was premature until the Water Board formally adopts the plan. The committee also discussed the coexisting-with-wildlife proposal and wolf-livestock conflict. Finance said the May Revision’s $1 million proposal would backfill existing funds to support limited-term staffing, deterrence tools, and conflict response, while members and the California Cattlemen’s Association said the need is larger and includes direct loss compensation, indirect loss compensation, and nonlethal deterrence. The Cattlemen’s Association said private insurance is limited and often inadequate for these losses. Members also raised concerns about the greenhouse gas reduction fund and transit, warning that lower auction revenues and possible CARB rule changes could leave major transit and other tier-three priorities underfunded. The LAO recommended planning for multiple revenue scenarios and reconsidering the current cap-and-invest spending framework. No votes or formal actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Oakwood and the first item our priority Oakwood and the first item our priority is<00:05:25.199>
• priority is always a maintenance pool. priority is always a maintenance pool.
• Uh we have a utmost priority for us.
• <00:32:46.399> such requirements and state priorities such requirements and state priorities
• <00:45:38.079> And high hazard high priority sites. And high hazard high priority sites.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Capital Planning Advisory Board met for its first meeting of the year, confirmed a quorum, approved the prior year’s minutes, and welcomed new co-chairs and members. The board reviewed the capital planning timeline and a list of agencies that submitted plans but would not testify. Members were reminded to keep presentations brief because of a packed agenda. The Cabinet for Health and Family Services presented first, outlining priorities centered on public safety, infrastructure preservation, and preventive maintenance. Its requests included a $21 million maintenance pool, phase two funding for a new state public health laboratory, construction of an 18-bed children’s psychiatric hospital, and several projects at Western State Hospital and Western State Nursing Facility, including HVAC work, cooling tower repair or replacement, and chiller plant repiping. Additional projects covered elevator upgrades at Hazlewood and phased cottage renovations at Oakwood. Board members asked about vacant buildings, the cost per bed for the youth psychiatric facility, and the relationship between the CHFS youth facility and a separate DJJ facility; CHFS said the youth facility would serve DCBS-involved youth and be separate from the DJJ project. The Kentucky Department of Education then described its state-operated facilities, including the Kentucky School for the Deaf, the Kentucky School for the Blind, and the FFA leadership training center. Its priorities included additional funding for the FFA classroom and activity building, a rewrite of the SEEK education finance application system, renovation and repair of the FFA swimming pool, electrical upgrades, campus education enhancements, safety and security work, door and window replacements, and HVAC maintenance. Members asked about student outcomes, the size and cost of the swimming pool project, and construction cost assumptions; KDE said it tracks student outcomes through special education staff and that current estimates reflect higher post-COVID construction costs. The Education and Labor Cabinet began its presentation with 12 priority projects, including a state labor exchange system, renovation of the McDow Vocational Rehabilitation Center, and a new adult education and family literacy management information system. The cabinet said the labor exchange would connect job seekers and employers at no cost, while the McDow renovation was needed because the 30-year-old facility faces safety and code concerns. The cabinet planned to continue through the remaining priorities and answer questions at the end of its presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is current practice to determine priority whenever requested among all eligibility priorities for
• That is a priority.
• That is a priority.
• So our recommendation is after the first priority and the second priority...
• So our recommendation is, after the first priority and the second priority, give all income-eligible

Summary: The joint hearing focused on California’s child care, preschool, and transitional kindergarten oversight, with chairs emphasizing the state’s Master Plan for Early Learning and Care and the need to break down silos between programs. CDSS and CDE reported progress toward the plan’s goals, including universal access to TK for all four-year-olds next school year, expanded access for low-income three-year-olds, and more children with disabilities being served in state preschool. They also noted ongoing work on quality rating/review reform, funding structure changes, and the need to address rates, workforce shortages, and federal uncertainty around Head Start. Testimony from advocacy groups and providers largely supported expanding access while simplifying the system. Children Now, Every Child California, and the California Budget and Policy Center argued that California still has uneven access, especially for infants, toddlers, and three-year-olds, and urged investments in mixed delivery, inclusion, full-day options, and a cost-of-care rate methodology. Every Child California recommended consolidating part-day and full-day contracts, streamlining eligibility priorities, making the two-year-old option permanent, and funding staffing incentives. Parent testimony highlighted how child care gaps and county-to-county transfer delays can disrupt work, safety, and children’s stability, and providers described low reimbursement rates, the need for health and retirement benefits, and support for delinking subsidy rates from private pay. The second panel addressed universal transitional kindergarten. The Learning Policy Institute reported rapid TK expansion, with most districts now offering TK, but said access still depends on facilities, staffing, and whether programs are available at all school sites. The Department of Finance said the governor’s budget would fully implement TK by adding funding for all eligible four-year-olds and lowering the adult-to-child ratio from 12:1 to 10:1. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said the administration’s enrollment and cost assumptions were optimistic and estimated lower TK enrollment growth and lower costs for the ratio change. CDE supported the expansion and urged continued funding for UPK coordinators, teacher development, and mixed-delivery planning grants. Members questioned facilities shortages, staffing competition, and how to ensure TK expansion does not displace CSPP or Head Start classrooms. No formal votes or actions were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Focused state priorities: how can we?
• With one-time money, focused state priorities, how can we stick to clear, stable, statewide priorities
• And for priority schools rather than rewarding only existing teachers.
• They have to serve in a priority school or teach in a priority school for two years.
• Only that it is a very high priority for us at the Student Aid Commission.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance heard an extended discussion on state efforts to recruit, prepare, and retain teachers, with a focus on whether current programs are sustainable and well targeted. Testimony from the Learning Policy Institute, the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, the Department of Education, and the Legislative Analyst’s Office described persistent shortages, especially in special education, math, science, bilingual education, and high-need schools. Speakers emphasized that residency programs, Golden State Teacher Grants, National Board incentives, classified employee pathways, and undergraduate teacher pipelines have helped increase preparation and retention, but many of these efforts rely on one-time funding and lack long-term certainty. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns about the “leaky pipeline,” working conditions, the burden of student debt, and whether the state should simplify and institutionalize support for aspiring teachers rather than rely on a patchwork of grants. The agencies presented data showing continuing shortages and uneven distribution of fully credentialed teachers. CTC reported projected hiring needs of roughly 20,000 to 25,000 teachers annually, with the highest needs in self-contained classrooms, special education, and certain regions of the state. It also noted that emergency permits, waivers, and intern credentials remain high, and that teachers entering through those routes have higher turnover. LPI cited research showing residency-prepared teachers are more effective and more likely to stay, and argued that Golden State Teacher Grants attract candidates who might not otherwise enter teaching and help them complete preparation. CDE stressed that most new demand comes from attrition and urged support for multiple entry points, tuition assistance, and campus-based coursework. Several members also discussed the role of community college pathways, dual credentialing, and support for school leaders as part of retention. The LAO recommended rejecting the educator pipeline proposals under discussion, citing limited evidence of effectiveness and suggesting that any new spending should be more narrowly targeted to the highest-need schools and long-standing shortage subjects. The LAO also said that if the Legislature funds new programs this year, Proposition 98 would be preferable given the state’s fiscal condition. Committee members pushed back on the idea that declining enrollment or layoffs would solve shortages, noting that shortages and layoffs can coexist in different subject areas and regions. The discussion ended with agreement that staff would continue working with agencies on how to make teacher pipeline investments more consistent, coherent, and easier for candidates to navigate. The committee then turned to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program. Finance proposed $50 million in one-time General Fund support to extend the program for one additional year, while the LAO recommended rejecting the proposal because the first CSAC evaluation is not due until later in the year and because the funding would be non-Proposition 98. CSAC supported the extension, saying demand has been strong, over 20,000 aspiring educators have been served since 2021, and the agency had to pause applications after receiving more than 9,200 this year; it also said more than 2,500 candidates had already expressed interest for next year. Members asked how many students the new funding would serve, and CSAC estimated just under 5,000 awards at $10,000 each. The discussion also covered whether the grant could be moved into Proposition 98 and how the one-time nature of the funding affects confidence among prospective teachers.

Transcript Highlights:

• Number two, climate action as a priority.
• And then economic prosperity, our fourth priority.
• But very much in many cases it's those four priorities or the former three priorities that I mentioned
• I want to touch on energy because is a shared priority.
• bit about our climate and air quality priorities as well.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• As you mentioned, we'll start with our education priorities and then joint. priorities, and then we'll
• Association priorities.
• If you turn now to the 2026 legislative priorities, you will see a list of the top priorities.
• Our third priority in the area of adequate funding.
• Our next priority is focused on the budget.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Focused state priorities: how can we stick to clear, stable, statewide priorities across these programs
• They have to serve in a priority school or teach in a priority school for two years.
• A priority school is defined as a school where...
• Are we losing them at the highest priority schools?
• And high priority is 55% unduplicated? High priority is 55% unduplicated, yes. Okay.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are priority wells for us.
• Again, we prioritize them, and so we've got a priority one today.
• We have roughly 2,500 wells on our priority list.
• As I understand it, y'all have a priority list, right?
• I have a quick question on, on that priority number 3.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum present to hear Article VI Natural Resources agency budget recommendations, beginning with the Railroad Commission. LBB staff summarized the commission’s 2026-27 base recommendation at $458.7 million, down from the prior biennium, with an increased FTE cap. The presentation highlighted reduced federal IIJA funding, volatility in oil and gas regulation account 5155, continued support for IT modernization, and rider changes. The commission’s major exceptional items were then presented, including requests for produced water and injection data reporting, an authorized pit registration system, regulatory filing/permitting upgrades, an underground injection well investigation team, site remediation support, and especially $100 million for orphan well plugging. Members asked about biennium-to-biennium comparisons, salary biennialization, the scale of orphan well risks, federal funding delays, bonding, and whether the state should rely more on industry or general revenue for plugging costs. Commission leadership explained that orphan wells can threaten water and public safety, that plugging costs have risen sharply, and that current funding is insufficient to keep up with emergency wells and the backlog; they also said the agency is moving to cloud-based systems with cybersecurity protections and that the proposed performance measure may need adjustment if funding does not increase. The Railroad Commission testimony was followed by LBB and agency testimony for the Texas Animal Health Commission. LBB described a $42 million recommendation for 2026-27, an increase overall, but with a reduced FTE cap due to turnover and salary reallocation. The recommendation maintained funding for cattle fever tick work, chronic wasting disease, lab testing through an MOU with Texas A&M’s veterinary diagnostic lab, and a new $5 million spay-and-neuter pilot program, while deleting a capital budget rider and adjusting riders tied to entry point inspection stations and clinical trials. Agency leadership then outlined the commission’s mission to protect livestock health and the state’s $22 billion animal industry, and described major disease threats including highly pathogenic avian influenza, cattle fever ticks, New World screwworm, and chronic wasting disease. Their exceptional items focused on recruiting and retaining veterinarians, replacing fleet vehicles, creating an ectoparasite identification lab, adding field staff and IT support, improving records and epidemiology reporting, strengthening central administration, supporting secure food supply planning, expanding chronic wasting disease work, and staffing the new spay-and-neuter program. Members asked about field identification of ticks, the use of disinfectants and PPE, fleet management, the scale of cattle fever tick risk, and chronic wasting disease; the agency explained its current inspection and lab-confirmation process, its reliance on field disinfecting and biosecurity, and the need for more staff and better data systems to keep pace with growing workloads and disease threats.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mentioned we're building a priority listing, and the next slide talks about our first priority, which
• <00:59:18.319> which talks about our first priority and which talks about our first priority and
• It is our number one priority in our priority listing because it is something that's been started, and
• facility it is our number one priority and<01:08:43.440> our<01:08:43.560> priority<01
• projects like that yet on the priority projects like that yet on the priority list<01:12:18.639>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• What is our real priorities?
• What is our real priorities?
• What is our real priorities?
• What is our real priorities?
• What is our real priorities?

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• item number six on this list priority item number six on this list priority number<00:21:05.600>
• that are stored there um our priority that are stored there um our priority item<00:42:28.319>
• I continue on priority I continue on priority 29<01:08:29.679> okay<01:08:30.120> okay
• Yes, that is why, um, Priority 1 of the priorities is to decommission what is it, Priority 1 now, and
• Yes, that is why, um, Priority 1 of the priorities is to decommission what is it, Priority 1 now, and

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The joint Ways and Means and Government Operations committees received a biennium budget preview from Keith Regan, Comptroller and Director of the Department of Accounting and General Services (DAGS), who introduced department leadership and described DAGS’ broad responsibilities across accounting, public works, procurement, elections, archives, risk management, and other attached agencies. He emphasized that DAGS supports nearly every state department and cited ongoing workforce challenges, while noting progress in reducing the department-wide vacancy rate from 21% in 2023 to 17.7% in 2024. He also highlighted recruitment efforts, including new salary schedules for engineers and architects, job fairs, internships, and outreach to retiring federal employees. A major focus was modernization of the state’s aging financial systems, especially the 55-year-old FAMIS platform and the Enterprise Financial System (EFS) project. DAGS said it expects to release the RFP for the FAMIS replacement by the end of January and is seeking a second tranche of CIP funding, including $35 million, plus position augmentation and creation of a Business Transformation Office to manage EFS and future modernization work. The department also described major capital projects such as the Aloha Stadium Entertainment District, Wahiawā Civic Center, Kauaʻi Civic Center, and Ahuimanu Community Correctional Center, and reported that Public Works is managing 455 projects statewide valued at more than $2.5 billion. Other budget requests discussed included funding for cemetery operations, with DAGS asking for two positions and $1 million in operating funds to support maintenance of eight cemeteries; a $200 million ceiling increase tied to anticipated insurance proceeds for West Maui fire-related recovery and rebuilding; and several staffing and operating items for district offices and facilities. These included full-year funding for positions in West Hawaiʻi and East Hawaiʻi, support for a small business coordinator at the State Procurement Office, funding for cloud hosting and PeopleSoft licensing, six positions and staff augmentation for the EFS project, electricity costs, and security-related funding. DAGS also noted that two requested reductions totaled $7.9 million, including transferring the security contract to the Department of Law Enforcement and reducing nonrecurring expenses; members discussed whether some security funding should remain with or be moved to DLE, and DAGS said it would not object to that transfer. No votes were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• our priority. Thank you. our priority. Thank you.
• assault should be the priority.
• a deadly assault should be the priority. a deadly assault should be the priority.
• Um I also agree with priority.
• <00:36:02.320> And decide where our priorities are. And decide where our priorities are.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 3492, which would create a $25 million grant program for school safety and security improvements, funded by a reduction in a prior appropriation for the Northern Lights Express rail project. The bill would allow grants of up to $500,000 through the Department of Education for school districts, charter schools, cooperative units, tribal contract schools, and nonpublic schools. Staff explained that the bill uses the language of clause 7 of the safe schools revenue statute, focusing on facility security enhancements such as laminated glass, public announcement systems, emergency communication devices, and related equipment and modifications. Testifiers and members generally supported the goal of improving school safety, but there was disagreement about the bill’s scope. Supporters, including a superintendent and a nonpublic school principal, said the bill would help pay for one-time hardening costs like secure entrances, door locks, redesigned offices, and other physical security upgrades, and argued that all schools and students should be eligible. Several members raised concerns that the bill is too narrow and too competitive, could disadvantage districts without grant writers, and should also allow broader uses such as counselors, social workers, SROs, or mental health supports. Others said the bill should prioritize physical security and that one-time dollars are best used for one-time facility improvements. No vote was taken. The chair indicated the bill would be laid over, and the discussion ended with the author saying the proposal is not a fix-all but a starting point for school safety investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, so Madam Chair, this is not a chapter priority. This is a Navajo Nation priority.
• Chapter priorities.
• The chapter has their priorities.
• Navajo Nation has a priority.
• When we talk about priorities from the Navajo Nation, Does it mean that whatever the priorities that