Transcript Highlights:

• a simple process or that's something that could be granted every year.
• And that's why I'm saying unless a waiver is granted... ...unless a waiver is granted, like I said, I
• because it is not currently granted within the Constitution, even though it is granted within law?
• The word grant does not appear in the underlying text.
• The word grant does not appear. The word grant does not appear in the pamphlet summary.

Summary: The committee met to review and adopt Legislative Council ballot measure analyses, with members repeatedly reminded that the hearing was limited to the accuracy, clarity, and impartiality of the summaries and not the merits of the underlying proposals. Steve Premack explained the statutory role of the analyses in the publicity pamphlet, and staff presented draft language for several measures. The committee considered and voted on multiple amendments, often debating whether proposed wording was clearer or instead crossed into advocacy or added unnecessary legal detail. For SCR 1004, members debated amendments to more closely mirror the measure’s text and to add language about electric vehicles and mileage, but several proposed changes were rejected. The analysis was ultimately adopted by an 8-6 roll call. HCR 2021 was then adopted without amendment by the same 8-6 margin. For HCR 2055, members debated whether the summary should say the Department of Homeland Security must “do everything” or “use all lawful means available,” and whether to add language about cartels acting “individually or collectively”; both amendments were rejected and the analysis was adopted 8-6. The committee next took up SCR 1004 on photo enforcement systems, where members proposed amendments to clarify that the measure would apply to red light cameras, to add “thereafter” regarding recurring voter approval, and to specify that approval would occur at the general election; those amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. On SCR 1032, dealing with instructional expenses and classroom site fund reductions, members debated adding a definition of the Classroom Site Fund and spelling out the waiver process in more detail; both amendments failed, and the analysis was adopted 8-6. Finally, on HCR 2001 regarding citizenship identification and early voting, members rejected amendments that would have added background on current law, clarified that mail voting would be affected, added severability and revenue-source language, and struck the measure’s short title; the discussion was lengthy and at times contentious, but the transcript ends before a final roll-call vote on that measure is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Every grant is site monitored.
• grants.
• c> competitive uh capacity grants and competitive uh capacity grants and competitive grants<00:53
• ><00:53:07.559> states grants the planning grants all states grants the planning grants all states
• allocate funding um we can allocate allocate funding um we can allocate funding<01:05:04.559>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• We have that allocated, schools program.
• <00:14:25.360> um applications for these these grants. um applications for these these grants
• Sometimes we take free things for granted.
• So this take free things for granted.
• <00:45:50.400> to around a set dollar amount allocation to around a set dollar amount allocation

Bills: HB2437, HB2461, HB2604, HB2605, HB1860, HB2001

Keywords: arts education, student engagement, cultural literacy, public schools, funding, public art, cultural preservation, community identity, art management, performing arts, ticket surcharge, arts funding, education, community support, therapeutic arts, neurodiverse, autism, attention-deficit disorder, underserved communities, mental health

Summary: The Committee on Culture and the Arts heard several measures focused on arts funding, public art, performing arts, and libraries. HB 2437 would appropriate funds for the State Foundation on Culture and the Arts’ Artists in the Schools program; the Foundation testified in strong support, explaining that demand has increased and that additional funding would allow more schools to be served. HB 2461 would raise the ceiling for the works of art special fund and provide money for maintenance and a collections manager position; the Foundation supported it and described major conservation needs, including large-scale repairs to public artworks such as the Tadashi Sato work in Hilo and the King Kamehameha statue, as well as ongoing bronze maintenance and new commissions affected by rising materials costs. HB 2604 would create a performing arts ticket surcharge; the Attorney General and Department of Taxation raised drafting and administration concerns, while the State Foundation supported the concept. HB 2605 would create a position to coordinate specialized arts programs and therapeutic arts interventions for underserved neurodivergent populations, and the Foundation supported that measure as well. HB 1860 would designate the Hawaii Symphony Orchestra as the state symphony orchestra and require annual reports; the Attorney General suggested clarifying the public purpose, and the Symphony, youth symphony, and many community supporters testified in favor, emphasizing educational, cultural, and civic benefits. HB 20001 would designate the first Friday in February as Love My Library Day; the State Public Library System, Friends of the Library, and individual testifiers strongly supported it, describing libraries as essential community and educational resources. After hearing testimony, the committee took action on several bills. HB 2437 was recommended for passage with amendments in HD1, with the appropriation blanked out and the additional needed funding to be noted for Finance consideration; the vote was unanimous among members present. HB 2604 was also recommended for passage with HD1 and technical amendments, including deleting the term “Hawaii-based,” clarifying that student performances at public charter schools are exempt, aligning recordkeeping provisions with tax law, and setting an effective date of January 1, 2027. HB 2461 was deferred to decision-making on Friday, February 13. The transcript also indicates the committee moved through the remaining measures after testimony, but the excerpt ends before final votes are shown for HB 2605, HB 1860, and HB 20001.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:21:34.679> has across the state and uh this grant has across the state and uh this grant
• <00:34:57.200> in conditions since the first allocation in conditions since the first allocation
• <00:43:23.040> reviews program funding allocation reviews program funding allocation reviews
• funding that's allocated funding that's allocated for<00:46:57.559> the<00:46:57.720>
• So again, the dollars are directly allocated to the Minnesota residents.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• “So we’re adding the $122 million to the RSA allocation for FY26.
• land grant that they receive.
• grant at UAPB.
• But we did pull out the amount for the 1890 land grant for UAPB.
• grant that UAPB or AM&N received.

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:

• program which supports local grant program which supports local entrepreneurs<00:58:12.799> we
• It also provides a hand up with $6.2 million in fiscal 26 and $5.4 million in fiscal 27 in grants for
• It also provides a hand up with $6.2 million in fiscal 26 and $5.4 million in fiscal 27 in grants for
• <01:13:50.520> for 4.1 million was um allocated for 4.1 million was um allocated for reintegration
• The decisions made in the allocation of state funds was a tedious but thoughtful process.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Is a $30 million grant being administered by the board, but SB 150 originally allocated $50 million in
• The funding that we were allocated is being... Our grant programs are coming to a close.
• We're responding to the closing out of grant programs, and those staff no longer are being allocated
• We call it the COYA Grant, the California Opportunity Youth Apprenticeship Grant.
• We've awarded $46 million in grants, and there is a third round of that grant that we are soon to announce

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The subcommittee heard a series of labor and public employment budget items. The first issue focused on EDD Next modernization, where EDD described progress on online claims, call center upgrades, fraud prevention, language access, and the phased Integrated Claims Management System. The LAO urged closer legislative oversight as the project enters a more difficult phase, and members questioned the schedule, cost, change orders, fraud reduction, stress testing, and the reasons for re-phasing unemployment insurance behind disability and paid family leave. EDD said the overall project cost remains about $1.2 billion, that it has no major cost overruns, and that it has saved more than $20 million by moving some shared customer portal work into ICMS. The committee also received updates on SB 1090 implementation timing, SB 1058 demographic data confidentiality, and SB 590 outreach concerns. The committee then reviewed the California Workforce Development Board’s request to reduce staffing over five years as one-time grant workloads wind down, along with trailer bill language to streamline reporting requirements. Members questioned the large staffing reduction in light of the board’s grant administration role and asked about the High Road Construction Careers Program, AI-related workforce needs, and the impact on reentry programs. The administration and Finance said the positions were added for surge grant work and are being phased down as those grants close, while the LAO had no objection to the reporting streamlining proposal. A major portion of the hearing addressed the Department of Industrial Relations, especially the Subsequent Injury Benefits Trust Fund trailer bill. DIR and the LAO said SIBTF applications, backlog, and liabilities have grown rapidly, with liabilities projected around $30 billion by 2030 if no changes are made. The administration’s reforms would tighten eligibility, apply the new standards to open cases, and use QME reports and contemporaneous evidence to document preexisting disabilities; DIR said this would reduce employer costs and help return the program to its original intent. Members raised concerns about fairness to pending claimants, the effect on workers with undocumented conditions, and the interaction with another bill moving through policy committees. The committee also discussed eliminating vacant DIR positions, adding Cal/OSHA Bureau of Investigation staff to handle fatality and serious injury cases, and making permanent the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board change that starts the 60-day reconsideration clock when a case is transmitted rather than when the petition is filed. Finally, DIR requested a larger apprenticeship training grant augmentation to raise annual grants from $3 million to $20 million, citing available fund balances and construction workforce needs.

Transcript Highlights:

• 50% gets allocated from the mass<00:04:40.720> agreement.
• Those are county fair grants that we give out.
• Um the county fair grants though that.
• county fair grants that we give out. county fair grants that we give out.
• counties to get a shot at those grants. counties to get a shot at those grants.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:20 Approval of Minutes 00:00:41 Department of Agriculture 00:01:06, 958, all

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on General Government met for its third meeting, approved the minutes, and heard a budget presentation from the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. Department representatives Brandon Reid, Lee Macintosh, and Mark Bolan outlined the agency’s funding mix and requested support for several priorities in House Bill 500, including continuation of existing items, county fair grants, and an additional $5 million for the new economic development fund. They also discussed a capital request to replace two aging scale trucks, noting the vehicles are from 2002 and 2006 and have become unreliable and expensive to repair. The department emphasized several additional needs: funding to begin regulating and inspecting electric vehicle charging stations through the weights and measures division, retention and recruitment funding after losing 108 employees over three years, and a request to pay off tobacco-related debt service so more money can flow through the tobacco formula. They also cited House Bill 417, filed by Speaker Osborne, as supporting farmland preservation, saying the agency has a program ready but needs funding to implement it. Officials said the farm-to-food-banks and rural mental health items in the budget were acceptable as reduced by the tobacco formula. Members asked questions about pump inspection fees and staffing losses. The department said the inspection fee is $100 per station, not per pump, and that the same fee applies even to larger stations. On retention and recruitment, officials said the cost of turnover is significant but they did not have a dollar estimate. No votes were taken beyond the motion to approve the minutes, and the meeting ended with a motion to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• that would come from the federal allocation.
• Because the way that the act is structured, we are unable to provide grants, so we can't make a grant
• We have another CAP grant application in development, perhaps a second Emerging Contaminants grant.
• The grant portion of the Water Trust Board and Colonius Infrastructure Board can be up to 90% of grant-like
• grants coming into the state.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's 13 miles that will qualify for a federal grant. They qualified for a $55 million grant.
• As was pointed out, on Highway 85, that's a grant. That's a 50-50 grant.
• Because it's allocated that in percentage. Mr.
• It affects the grants because those grants go through that committee.
• From being excluded from the grants.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to consider Senate Bill 2012, the Department of Transportation budget, with Representative Brandenburg presenting a detailed House amendment package and Speaker Robin Weisz explaining the overall funding strategy. The discussion focused on restructuring transportation funding streams, including moving Prairie Dog money into a flexible transportation fund, adjusting gas tax distributions, increasing the legacy earnings transfer from 7% to 8%, and authorizing a $155 million bond for Highway 85. Members also discussed DOT operations, bridge funding, rest areas, electronic titling, and the use of funds for grants to counties, cities, and townships. A separate provision would let the DOT consider whether local ordinances or policies unreasonably restrict permitted agriculture or energy projects when scoring grant applications, which drew significant debate about local control and whether the language was punitive. Testimony from Brandenburg and Weisz emphasized that the plan was intended to provide more predictable funding, preserve the ability to match federal dollars, and direct money where needs are greatest through a grant process. Weisz said the package was designed to simplify multiple revenue buckets, ensure DOT can meet federal match requirements, and free up money for the general fund while still supporting transportation needs. Several members raised concerns about whether cities, counties, and townships would receive as much as under the prior Prairie Dog structure, whether the bridge allocation was correctly reflected in the bill, and whether the local-policy language would penalize subdivisions that oppose energy projects. Supporters argued the state needed to protect revenue tied to energy development and that local governments would still receive distributions plus additional grant opportunities. The committee adopted the House amendment to SB 2012 by a vote of 19-1-3, then rejected an amendment to remove the local-policy language on a 5-15-3 vote. The committee then passed SB 2012 as amended on a 20-0-3 vote, with Representative Brandenburg designated as the carrier. The chair announced that Senate Bill 2014 would not be taken up at that time and the committee recessed until called back.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Excel Center is not just granting diplomas.
• We must champion multiple pathways, including diploma-granting high schools, so every Arkansan has the
• In FY 2025, they received $2.4 billion for K-12 education for this allocation.
• there to create the full Public School Fund allocation for the year.
• Then we have our ESA, or enhanced student achievement matching grants.

Summary: The House and Senate Education Committee first approved minutes from February 2 and 3, then heard an interim study proposal on Arkansas adult education and the Excel Center model, presented by Goodwill Industries of Arkansas and the University of Notre Dame’s Lab for Economic Opportunities. Witnesses argued that about 300,000 Arkansas adults lack a high school diploma or GED and described the Excel Center as a diploma-granting public charter option for adults 19 and older, with wraparound supports such as child care, transportation, tutoring, life coaching, and career services. They said the Arkansas campuses are not state-funded, highlighted growth in enrollment and graduation outcomes, and cited research showing improved employment, earnings, and reduced criminal justice involvement for graduates. Committee members discussed the role of Goodwill’s nonprofit mission, the need for multiple adult education pathways, and the relationship between adult education challenges and broader state efforts such as LEARNS and ACCESS. The committee then debated the interim study proposal procedure, including whether questions should have been taken before the vote. The motion to adopt the ISP passed, and members noted that the study would broadly examine adult education, GED testing, high school diplomas, charter schools, in-person adult education, and funding allocation. Several members asked for follow-up information on current adult education funding, the availability of Excel Centers, and the criminal justice study results. After that, staff from the Bureau of Legislative Research gave a detailed adequacy funding overview for Arkansas K-12 education. They reviewed national funding principles and then explained Arkansas’s revenue streams and distribution system, including general revenue, the Educational Excellence Trust Fund, the Educational Adequacy Fund, local property-tax revenues, and facilities partnership funding. They also walked through the state’s foundation formula, categorical aid, supplemental aid, and additional funding, including the per-student matrix amount of $7,771 for 2025 and how funds are allocated to districts and charters. Members asked about student support staff, special education high-cost occurrences, ALE funding, teacher salary equalization, and the Excel Center’s treatment in funding totals; staff said some of those questions would be addressed in a later spending presentation. The meeting ended after the committee was told the department was present mainly to answer questions and no further business remained.

Transcript Highlights:

• question surrounded private school. because we talked about the $1 billion that is a contingency allocation
• Almost all of our programs are eligible for Texas. water fund allocations.
• uh, on the horizon on where we can best allocate those dollars. Brian, why don't I start?
• That was a one-time allocation.
• Help them with grant. Management things like that.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are managing today a total of $23.7 billion in federal grants.
• Now, that is the total. ...total project value of the open grants.
• It appeals to our Fire Management Assistance Grants, or FMAGS.
• And then you see some of our other mitigation grant funds down there.
• You are a land-grant university. You stand on your own.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That allocates grain in the base situation.
• One important source of funding is grants.
• And these grants are highly competitive.
• These grants are highly competitive, with a bit less than a third of all grant applications being awarded
• we could go out and get one grant to complete a project.

Summary: The committee first heard an update on the Joint Transportation Committee study of transportation impacts if the Lower Snake River dams were removed. WSDOT and Jacobs described the study’s phases, including current work on geology, infrastructure risk, and a total logistics cost model. They explained that the study is examining how freight now moved by barge—especially wheat, fertilizer, and wood—could shift to rail and roads, and they outlined several scenarios ranging from no-dam future conditions to new unit-train terminals, short-line rail options, and a combined “many solutions” scenario. Members asked about irrigation, impacts in Idaho and Oregon, port capacity, emissions, competition, EV trucks, and whether the model could estimate transportation effects if grain volumes decline. The presenters said the study assumes current production levels continue, does not model irrigation changes or broader farm-economics impacts, but does account for transloading costs and can estimate transportation impacts under different volume assumptions. WSU’s independent review team said the model has improved substantially but still needed refinement, especially in routing, road data, and spatial detail, and that stakeholder engagement had been strong though delayed by model development. No votes were taken. The committee then received a presentation on the alternative sidewalk funding study. Staff and consultants said the study is exploring ways local governments could sustainably fund sidewalk maintenance, repair, and new construction, using a statewide survey, interviews, national research, and case studies in eight jurisdictions. They noted sidewalks are important for pedestrian safety and connectivity, but there is no dedicated funding source in Washington, and existing grants and local revenue tools are highly competitive or limited. The consultants highlighted sidewalk fees or utility-style charges as the most promising option to study, while a parcel tax was largely set aside because of state property-tax uniformity concerns. Members asked whether the study would duplicate existing funding or add to current taxes, and how a sidewalk fee would be collected; the consultants said the goal is to expand local options, not mandate adoption, and that fees would likely be billed through utilities rather than property taxes. A preliminary draft report is due December 15, with a final report due in mid-June. Next, staff gave a brief update on the ocean-going vessels study, which is examining shore power and emissions rules for vessels at berth. The presenter explained that federal Clean Air Act rules and California waiver authority create legal limits on how far Washington can go if it wants to adopt similar standards, and that deviations from California’s approach can increase litigation risk. The report will summarize stakeholder outreach and will be presented in draft form at the next JTC meeting. Finally, county engineers from Chelan and Douglas counties began a presentation on county transportation challenges, with the association’s director emphasizing collaboration with state agencies and local partners on issues such as fish passage barriers and infrastructure needs. The county presentation was only beginning when the transcript ended, and no committee action or votes were recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is this allocation paying back that loan? This allocation is not paying back that loan.
• I have a question about the allocation for the Clean Cars for All program.
• allocation.
• I would like to know more about this allocation and the decision.
• To allocate more, and who this is going to serve.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• one-time money was allocated to one-time costs.
• How much of that is allocated? Sorry, where are those?
• funds exactly allocated when it comes to children with IDD?
• Almost all of our programs are eligible for Texas water fund allocations.
• That was a one-time allocation.

Keywords: infrastructure, water supply, flood mitigation, Texas Water Fund, community projects, funding allocations

Summary: During this committee meeting, the focus was on discussing critical infrastructure funding, especially related to water supply and flood mitigation projects. Chairwoman Stepney and the Water Development Board presented extensive details regarding the Texas Water Fund, which included $1 billion appropriated to assist various financial programs and tackle pressing water and wastewater issues. Additionally, funding allocations aimed at compromising the state's flood risk and improving water conservation were hotly debated, emphasizing collaboration among committee members and the necessity of addressing community needs in such projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• It is putting increasing $750,000 each year under the E agreement for these challenge grants, and so
• So the idea behind these grants for the college support is to continue to mitigate the tuition there
• <00:02:48.519> for high the idea behind these grants for high the idea behind these grants
• <00:15:45.560> on<00:15:45.680> a<00:15:45.800> per granted out it's granted
• out on a per granted out it's granted out on a per faculty<00:15:46.560> basis<00:15:47.360><

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Will this be 50/50 metro-outstate, or is that allocated in there? be available? Right.
• I guess I'd be a little bit more comfortable if it was actually in the bill that a certain allocation
• And then the second used for the grants.
• it um is that allocated in there? it um is that allocated in there?
• resources of their 10 million allocation resources of their 10 million allocation for<00:13:25.920

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• I talked earlier about the non-state project grant program.
• I talked earlier about the non-state project grant program.
• , we can then move it to another allocation.
• But through that process, we also obviously apply for grants.
• Obviously, through our annual plan, we allocate those dollars; they're fully allocated in each annual

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:

• And so, uh, in terms of the allocation method, uh, we plan to recommend the same allocation methodology
• Um but and allocation would be.
• And so, that bill uh in allocation.
• grant loan programs. grant loan programs.
• And then grant and loan programs.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:11 Approval of Minutes 00:02:00 Information Items 00:02:25 CPE Special Report 00:03:26 Review of Executive Branch Agency Plans 00:31:48 A. Attorney General 00:32:10 B. Court of Justice 00:36:41 C. Cabinet for Economic Development 00:50:44 D. Kentucky Public Pensions Authority 00:56:06 E. Board Discussion of Planning Issues 01:05:12, 958, all

Summary: The Capital Planning Advisory Board opened its fourth meeting, confirmed a quorum, approved the prior meeting’s minutes by unanimous voice vote, and then heard information items and agency presentations. The main substantive presentation came from the Council on Postsecondary Education, which outlined its capital planning recommendations for the 2026–28 biennium. CPE staff described the role of Kentucky’s research and education network (Kron), including connectivity to cloud services, Internet2, identity services, and new local AI/inferencing capacity, and argued that the network is now essential to higher education, health care, and extension services. They said the network’s recent upgrades were driven by privacy, security, redundancy, and the need to support modern research and AI workloads at lower cost than commercial providers. CPE also presented its broader higher-education capital request: $700 million for asset preservation and $1.73 billion for new construction, for a total recommendation of about $2.4 billion. Staff said they do not plan to recommend IT projects or equipment in this cycle, despite reviewing 48 IT submissions totaling nearly $1.4 billion and equipment requests totaling $322.6 million. For asset preservation, they said the recommended allocation method would remain based on each institution’s share of Category 1 and 2 square footage, and they noted that the state’s prior facility assessment is now 12 years old, with deferred maintenance still estimated in the $7–9 billion range. For new construction, they said the requests are heavily focused on STEM and health-related facilities that are difficult to retrofit into older buildings. Board members asked about how asset-preservation amounts were determined, including why Northern Kentucky University’s request was much larger than its prior allocation. CPE staff responded that campus size, building age, and institutional prioritization affect the requests, and that schools are asked to submit more projects than are likely to be funded. The board then moved on to an Attorney General capital plan overview, where senior counsel Will Schroeder began describing the office’s technology needs and the office’s prior reliance on a 2020 appropriation to replace legacy systems and improve security.