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:

• 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:

• 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:

• 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:

• Okay, HB 1 is the general appropriation bill that outlines how the state will allocate funds for the
• It makes adjustments to the self-insured fund allocation caps and the fiscal responsibility measures.
• This includes allocating money to the Louisiana Transportation Infrastructure Fund, higher ed campus
• Language granting the Site Investment and Infrastructure Improvement Fund more authority.
• The annual allocation to the local entities can be found on pages 40 through 43 of this bill.

Bills: HB1, HB2, HB3, HB312, HB313, HB314, HB383, HB983, HB1126, HCR3

Keywords: state budget, appropriations, education funding, public health, social services, government operations, state institutions, capital outlay, budget, infrastructure, appropriation, general obligation bonds, bond authorization, capital improvement, financial management, state treasury, funding, state general fund, local government, fiscal year

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:

• I move to grant the Senate request for a conference committee on SB 1566.
• The motion is granted. Conferees? Clerk, will read the conferees.
• The chair hears none, the motion is granted. The clerk will read the conferees.
• HB 2 directly allocates those dollars by allocating $4.2 billion for teacher compensation through a new
• The motion is granted. Falling conferees? Clerk, read the conferees.

Bills: HB5560, HB2, HB24, HB3233, HB1397, HB2067, HB3133, HB5696, HB5680, HB2885, HB3966, HB3556, HB3595, HB144, HB26, HB2038, HB521, HB4, HB 1178, HB42, HB 1211, HB783, HB3963, HB2240, HB1690, HB 1234, HB3372, HB27, HB4211, HB2243, HB2853, HB4638, HJR7, HB 100, HB 126, HB3783, HB5138, HB2512, HB5616, HB4751, SB17, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB21, SB2778, SB260, SB8, SB12, SB37, SB379, SB441, SB1566, SB2878, HB4112, HB3866, HB4749, HB2844, HB150

Keywords: groundwater, civil penalties, water conservation, drought contingency, environmental protection, public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, zoning, public notice, local government, residential development

Bills: HB5560, HB2, HB24, HB3233, HB1397, HB2067, HB3133, HB5696, HB5680, HB2885, HB3966, HB3556, HB3595, HB144, HB26, HB2038, HB521, HB4, HB 1178, HB42, HB 1211, HB783, HB3963, HB2240, HB1690, HB 1234, HB3372, HB27, HB4211, HB2243, HB2853, HB4638, HJR7, HB 100, HB 126, HB3783, HB5138, HB2512, HB5616, HB4751, SB17, SB1637, SB1833, SB2155, SB21, SB2778, SB260, SB8, SB12, SB37, SB379, SB441, SB1566, SB2878, HB4112, HB3866, HB4749, HB2844, HB150

Keywords: groundwater, civil penalties, water conservation, drought contingency, environmental protection, public education, teacher compensation, certification, funding, school finance, educator rights, education funding, charter schools, staff compensation, state aid, retention allotment, zoning, public notice, local government, residential development

Transcript Highlights:

• As its Qualified Allocation Plan, as required under the federal LIHTC program.
• I believe the Governing Board could grant a waiver in that case. You grant a waiver?
• He asked for one, so we granted it willingly.
• You know, the city allocates some overhead. It's minimal.
• Okay, so you must be Grant? Yes, sir. Please state your name for the record.

Bills: HB22, SB250, SB375, SB536, SB845, SB1633, SB1944, SB1957, SB2081, SB2137, SB2262, SB2299, SB2419, SB2452, SB2522, SB2549, SB2594, SB2605, SB2631, SB2639, SB2675, SB3029, SJR60, HB22, HB1392, HB2525

Keywords: emergency communication, broadband, funding, natural disasters, technology, HB 22, Texas broadband development office, comptroller, emergency communications, early warning systems, disaster alerts, natural disaster notifications, interoperable communications, interoperable emergency radio, public safety communications, 9-1-1, next generation 9-1-1, NG911, broadband grants, low-interest loans

Transcript Highlights:

• This program provides down payment assistance as a grant or as a forgivable second lien loan to eligible
• We have an annual allocation through bonds, where we can utilize mortgage revenue bonds, which is limited
• It's powers granted, right?
• So we've granted those powers and... and if you don't want to enforce it, then you should make the case

Bills: SB250, SB375, SB536, SB845, SB1633, SB1944, SB1957, SB2081, SB2137, SB2262, SB2299, SB2419, SB2452, SB2522, SB2549, SB2594, SB2605, SB2631, SB2639, SB2675, SB3029, SJR60, HB22, HB1392, HB2525, HB22

Keywords: municipal annexation, railroad, adjacent areas, local government, property rights, healthcare provider, Harris County Hospital District, hospital funding, healthcare services, public health program, home loans, nurses, veterans, public servants, Texas Heroes program, low-interest loans, social workers, housing assistance, SB 1633, Texas Tax Code

Transcript Highlights:

• , have like block ranting, block granting, have like block ranting, block granting, block<00:16:55.279
• I mean, I think in many ways there are block grant fundings.
• I mean, we actually have within the State of Hawaii a degree of block grant funding.
• I mean the department of grant funding.
• to take in grants um from from the Fed. to take in grants um from from the Fed.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Higher Education met on February 18, 2026, and heard four bills. HB 2519 would shift University of Hawaii funding toward block appropriations, a stabilization fund, limited procurement and fiscal exemptions, performance-based metrics, and annual reporting. UH supported the bill, saying line-item budgeting hampers systemwide efficiency across its 10 campuses; the State Procurement Office commented on the procurement exemption. The chair proposed amendments to address concerns from Budget and Finance and procurement, including capping UH’s retained funds at 10%, requiring lapse after three fiscal years, removing CIP-to-operating transfers, narrowing procurement exemptions while keeping Chapter 103B principles, shifting performance metric-setting to the Board of Regents, and requiring annual reporting. The committee then voted to pass HB 2519 with amendments. HB 2409 would establish the Hawaii Geological Survey in Hilo and designate its director as the state geologist. UH Hilo supported the concept but said it would need sufficient general-fund support, estimating roughly $200,000 to start. DLNR and the Attorney General offered comments, with the AG calling it a matter of statewide concern. The chair said the DNR testimony raised public safety concerns and that UH Hilo had not identified a firm funding amount, so the committee voted to defer the bill. HB 2141 HD1 concerned state enterprise zones and would expand eligible business activities and allow DBED to designate up to two areas as enterprise zones with gubernatorial approval. DBED, the Tax Foundation, and other organizations submitted support or comments. After discussion, the chair said the current version no longer fit the higher education committee’s focus and recommended reverting to the original bill, which would limit the zone to Kakaʻako Makai for a biomedical health innovation hub near JABSOM and the Queen’s Cancer Center, with a defective date. The committee voted to pass HB 2141 HD1 with amendments. HB 2233 HD1 would appropriate funds to continue the SNAP-Ed program through UH and the Department of Health. DOH supported the bill and said it had been working on nutrition education and environmental changes; it estimated about $600,000 each for DOH and SEAR, or $1.2 million total. Testimony in support also came from several organizations and individuals, including a senior advocate who described the program’s practical benefits. The chair said the committee would reflect the $600,000-per-entity estimate in its report, and the committee voted to pass HB 2233 HD1 as is before adjourning.

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:

• None of it, none of that money, was impacted by federal grants or money.
• So the legislature allocated initially $1 million to us for a pilot.
• So the legislature allocated initially $1 million to us for a pilot.
• But over time, we're seeing that reserve being allocated more.
• So this is the Second Chance Act grant.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met to approve the May 5 minutes and hear a presentation from the Massachusetts Probation Service. The minutes were approved unanimously, with a request that a member’s closing remarks be added to the record. The commission also noted online participants and confirmed quorum before moving to the presentation. Probation leaders described the agency’s role as the state’s largest post-release supervision system and emphasized its focus on reentry, accountability, and reducing technical violations. They outlined the from-and-after sentencing structure, dual supervision with parole, and efforts to reduce revocations and non-criminal violations. Members asked about racial and ethnic disparity work, and probation said that effort is funded through the trial court and state budget, not federal grants. The presentation highlighted community engagement, simplified and translated probation conditions, workforce diversification, and training aimed at improving trust and access for court users. A major portion of the discussion focused on Community Justice Support Centers, evidence-based programming, and shared services such as housing, MassHealth enrollment, transportation, and behavioral health referrals. Probation said the centers are underutilized but have shown improved outcomes in non-randomized studies, with lower recidivism among participants compared with similar probationers. Members discussed mental health access, veterans identification, medication-assisted treatment, and the importance of state IDs and driver’s licenses for successful reentry. The commission also heard about housing supports, including transitional and sober housing, and a statewide behavioral health initiative for justice-involved individuals. The meeting ended with plans for the next session on July 11 and a motion to adjourn, which passed.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we had $436 million that we could allocate elsewhere.
• We added $100,000 to the facility grant program under the... grant program under the arts.
• So together that will be $22.9 million in community service grants.
• Project is allocated $22 million.
• This is the auxiliary teacher grant program for $5.4 million.

Bills: SB113, SB114, SB305, SB111, HB600, SB112, SB150, SB109, SB122

Keywords: education funding, appropriations, local education boards, school safety, workforce development, Alabama, technology, higher education, career technology centers, public institutions, grants, local education agencies, RAISE Act, student outcomes, public schools, accountability, weighted allocations, special education, English language learners, gifted students

Transcript Highlights:

• We have modestly increased an airport development grant program and the site development grant program
• We are also looking at Charter School Grants, recognizing that they do not have the ability to access
• He is proposing an allocation out of that fund totaling $133 million. You can see the details...
• This includes $15 million allocated for these initiatives.
• One thing I mentioned is the allocations out of the budget.

Keywords: 924, joint, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So contracts and grants is the next large budget entity at $5 billion.
• It includes primarily federal grants, along with some state contracts and grants.
• It started last year with $100 million in non-recurring funds, and another $100 million was allocated
• The amount of state funds allocated to performance funding this year is $350 million.
• How do we, how does the system allocate the number of out-of-state versus the number of in-state?

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education received a presentation from Tim Jones, Senior Vice Chancellor and CFO for the State University System of Florida, on the system’s funding methodology, budget structure, tuition, and performance-based funding. He outlined the system’s scale, including 12 universities, more than 430,000 students taking classes, about 78,000 employees, and a roughly $20 billion operating budget. He also reviewed tuition levels, noting Florida’s low resident undergraduate tuition, the lack of tuition increases since 2013, and the distinction between state-set resident tuition and Board of Governors authority over other tuition categories. Jones described several funding components, including performance funding, preeminence funding, faculty recruitment and retention programs, universities of distinction, nursing pipeline and matching programs, and operational enhancements. He explained that performance funding is based on a 100-point model tied to retention, graduation, employment, and other metrics, with student success plans required if scores decline or fall below 70 points. He said the current performance funding allocation is $350 million and the legislative budget request seeks $400 million. He also said the new SUS 30 strategic plan will lead to updates in the performance metrics and benchmarks, with some changes possibly phased in over time. Senators asked questions about how the new strategic plan will affect future scoring, how long universities have to improve after declining scores, and how out-of-state enrollment and tuition are handled. Jones said universities will be evaluated on the current metrics for the upcoming budget cycle, while the new plan’s changes will be developed later and may include glide paths. He also said there is no statutory cap on nonresident students, though the Board of Governors has a 10% systemwide guideline under discussion, and that graduate out-of-state tuition varies by program and requires institutional and Board of Governors approval. No votes were taken, no public testimony was offered, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's say it's a million dollar allocation to an organization.
• We received the allocation on July 1st; it became available to us.
• So this is how our board allocated it to these activities.
• Then, in 2021, they finally got an allocation of tax credits.
• However, that allocation wasn't enough.

Transcript Highlights:

• enforcement money that we have allocated enforcement money that we have allocated for<00:30:21.440
• It's it's amount of grants or anything.
• So, that's on hold. um adequacy grants. There's a section in um adequacy grants.
• And I am allocation. Um, yes, 50/50.
• Well, this this allocation as well?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first revisited HB 781, the cell phone bill, after previously retaining it. On reconsideration, members moved to OTP the bill, and it passed unanimously. The committee then moved into the budget tracking packet and adopted an amendment to HB 2 to add the same cell phone policy language, also unanimously, and separately reduced HB 1 by $1 million to match the policy change. Members noted the cell phone language had already been stripped of grant funding language in the House version and that the policy and funding pieces were being aligned across the budget bills. The committee then took up a Department of Education technical amendment to HB 2 on charter school grants, which made timing and administrative changes without altering grant amounts, and adopted it unanimously. Members also discussed but held other education-related items, including adequacy grants, pending broader decisions on overall education funding. Another HB 2 item concerning E-911/state police radio communications prompted a longer discussion about whether E-911 surcharge funds were being used for purposes that should instead be general-funded. After debate over whether to leave the current practice in place or split the funding 50/50 between E-911 and general funds, the committee adopted a joint HB 1/HB 2 change to shift the funding source to a 50/50 split and delete the HB 2 language authorizing the prior use; the motion passed 7-0. The committee also discussed but did not act on several lottery-related provisions, including the video lottery terminal amendment, the increase in maximum ticket price from $30 to $50, and related tax split changes, with members planning to hear from the Lottery Commission on Monday. The meeting ended with the committee beginning review of new amendments in the tracking packet, including a Department of Education request related to Public School Infrastructure Commission grant administration, but no action was taken on that item in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And, once a grant has been awarded... ...the project grant agreement was often taking more than a year
• One local grant in Georgia took 31 months from the notice of funding opportunity to the grant award execution
• this category of grants.
• I've got a rule bridge that we received a grant from, a rule grant to grade separate over a railroad.
• And so we're over a year from the grant award and we still don't have a grant executed while we're designing

Keywords: Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, IIJA, bipartisan infrastructure, funding flexibility, NEPA, environmental reviews, bureaucratic delays, federal funding, infrastructure investment

Summary: The committee meeting focused on the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act, discussing the ongoing implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Chairman Capito highlighted the bipartisan nature of the legislation and the necessity of refining existing provisions to ensure effective delivery of transportation projects. Notable emphasis was placed on the need for flexibility in funding to address inflation impacts and delays caused by bureaucratic hurdles, especially relating to environmental reviews under NEPA. Witnesses from state transportation agencies provided valuable insights into real-world challenges faced in project execution, ultimately underscoring the importance of continuous federal support for infrastructure development. The discussion also touched on the broader implications of federal funding freezes by the previous administration, which have reportedly hindered several ongoing and planned projects. This issue raised significant concern among committee members, who urged the need for reliable funding and the removal of unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles that could cause delays in project implementation. The meeting concluded with a commitment from the members to work collaboratively to overcome these challenges and ensure a smooth path forward for critical infrastructure investments.