Transcript Highlights:

• they're they're put our community grant they're they're put our community grant in<00:26:18.520>
• And what these are are the main grants management statutes that apply to grants involving state money
• of expenditures under the grant.
• community grant program. community grant program.
• this grant and had never known to apply. this grant and had never known to apply.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• of Grants Management. of Grants Management.
• Hayes, could you please, one, talk about grants management and grants as contracts.
• ><00:04:54.720> and<00:04:55.080> grants<00:04:55.520> as about grants management
• and grants as about grants management and grants as contracts.<00:04:56.520> That's<00:04:56.800
• Uh and it's generally given to a grant.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee heard House File 3672, authored by Representative Quam, and the bill was laid over. Quam said the measure is based on findings from past Legislative Audit Commission audits and is intended to clarify state requirements, strengthen agency compliance, and address gaps such as conflicts of interest in grant administration. He said he wants the auditor to work directly with the revisor and agencies so the rules are clearer and less likely to be misunderstood. Betsy Hayes, Assistant Commissioner with the Department of Administration, testified that sections 5 through 11 of the bill would strengthen grants management authorities, reporting, monitoring, training, and conflict-of-interest limits, and said those changes are generally supported and in some cases already reflected in policy. She raised concern about section 3, saying it could sweep too broadly by applying chapter 16B grants-management requirements to all state payments to non-state entities, including procurement payments, which could create fiscal impact and regulatory overlap. She said the department is working with the author, the Office of the Legislative Auditor, and Auditor Randall to refine the language. Chair Clayburn asked for clarification on the difference between grants and procurement contracts and on the relationship between chapters 16B and 16C. Hayes explained that grants are typically reimbursement-based payments to third parties under chapter 16B, while procurement contracts are inward-facing state purchases under chapter 16C. She said section 3 could unintentionally capture procurement and apply grants rules to it. Clayburn said the bill’s intent is good and welcomed continued work on the language before the bill moves forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are the DHS grants. Members, do we have any questions on DHS grants?
• This is amendment four to an existing grant. It's a federal grant.
• These are the DHS grants. Members, we have any questions on DHS grants?
• This is also a federal grant. with st anthony's hospital association this is also a federal grant and
• Members, any questions on these grants?

Summary: The subcommittee first considered a used tire program contract for Arkansas District 4, an $88,000 one-year contract with LTR Intermediate Holdings. Senators raised concerns that the tire district’s revised business plan had not yet been approved and that the contract could leave the district unable to pay. Questions also focused on solicitation language that excluded bidders under corrective action plans. On motion, the committee held the contract until next month and encouraged the tire board to appear. Members then reviewed and, without objection, moved forward a series of methods of finance, alternative delivery projects, and discretionary grants. These included multiple university and college projects such as renovations, roof replacements, a new UCA multipurpose arena, and a revised financing package for UA Fayetteville’s Maple Hill residence hall. The committee also reviewed DHS and Department of Health grants for aging services, substance abuse prevention, mental health, nutrition outreach, hearing-loss follow-up, HIV services, maternal health, and rural hospital quality improvement. The committee next handled contract items, including a UAMS ratification for FMLA Source after an amendment was not submitted for review and payments continued past expiration; UAMS said it had retrained staff and would review for other missed contracts. Members also reviewed numerous construction, intergovernmental, out-of-state, and in-state contracts across state agencies and universities. Questions were raised about an out-of-state aeronautics study, a U of A Fayetteville parking guidance system, and a Veterans Affairs nursing contract. Most items were reviewed without objection, and the meeting adjourned after informational reports on contract amendments and minor contracts.

Transcript Highlights:

• WE HAVE MANY GRANT PROGRAMS OUT THERE AND WE HAVE OUR PARKS GRANTS, ARTS AND CULTURE GRANTS AND THINGS
• AS WE HAVE IN OTHER GRANT PROGRAMS?
• I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT HOW MUCH WOULD THE AVERAGE GRANT BE IN THIS PROGRAM.
• YOU'RE TALKING VERY MUCH ABOUT THE GRANT PROGRAM.
• IS THERE AN APPROPRIATION RIGHT NOW FOR THE GRANT PROGRAM? >> Sen.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• development public infrastructure grant development public infrastructure grant program<00:02:56.480
• exceed $5 million with the state Grant exceed $5 million with the state Grant of<00:04:24.560>
• We thank you for the grant, and we hope that you would continue to support the program.
• We are the recipients as well of this BBPI grant, and we were also recipients of a federal ADA grant
• I would just say that the impact of this grant is farther reaching beyond the project itself.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• But perhaps a couple extra grant dollars and grant funding might be what pushes them over the edge and
• That's across our entire wildfire grant portfolio.
• It's just how can we share grant data with folks who aren't part of the grant management process?
• of the grant program.
• or not, are operating their grant programs.

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• balance does it go towards more grants balance does it go towards more grants or<00:21:25.120>
• <00:27:10.399> that<00:27:10.559> start the grants that start the grants that start
• eligible um to retain for Grant eligible um to retain for Grant Administration<00:31:19.760>
• How much of the grant process takes that into the amount of grants that are given?
• in one of the grant in one of the grant request<00:34:47.720> based<00:34:47.960> on

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• They have two grants.
• Discretionary grants number two. Item D2 are the discretionary grants presented.
• grants the first grant is a new federal grant valued at 11,500 dollars to north arkansas regional medical
• Discretionary grants number two. Item D2 are the discretionary grants presented.
• This is Amendment 2 to an existing grant, a federal grant, or, excuse me, other funded grant, valued

Summary: The ALC-Review Subcommittee reviewed seven methods of finance, including university projects at ASU Jonesboro and Mountain Home, Black River Technical College deferred maintenance, UA Batesville’s Farm Project Gateway Center, UAMS PET cyclotron equipment, a new allied health building at UAPB funded by a federal grant, and UCA’s multi-purpose arena design work. The committee also approved an alternative delivery construction project for UAPB’s Allied Health and Sciences Building, with East Harding Construction selected and AMR Architects as designer. Members then approved discretionary grants from the Department of Health and DHS, including support for a heart attack center designation, community health worker training, homeless services funding corrections, behavioral health transition support, and an enabling technology pilot. In the contracts section, the committee reviewed RFQs, construction-related contracts, intergovernmental contracts, and a large slate of out-of-state and in-state contracts covering topics such as seatbelt survey data collection, Medicaid and DHS systems, state hospital staffing and services, veterans’ services, education assessments, and state IT and procurement projects. Several contracts drew extended questioning. Senators and representatives pressed DHS and the Department of Veterans Affairs about heavy reliance on contract nursing and staffing costs, and officials said they were using pay incentives and recruitment efforts to increase state employee staffing. Members also questioned AEDC’s lithium supply chain study and the Department of Education’s security contract, with concerns about projected costs and repeated amendments. The committee held three in-state contracts—Department of Education security services and two DHS staffing contracts—until Friday, then adopted the remaining contracts and received informational reports on contract amendments, executed contracts, and emergency procurements before adjourning.

Transcript Highlights:

• This program provides grants to... ...general fund for the dual enrollment opportunities grant program
• grants to mirror the funding levels of planning or startup grants.
• first version of this grant program.
• The charter school facility grant program provides annual grants to help offset facility costs to charter
• The Charter School Facility Grant Program is The Charter School Facility Grant Program is a model.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee began with public comment and then heard an informational update on the administration’s Career Education Master Plan and the California Education Interagency Council. State agencies described efforts to better align workforce, higher education, and TK-12 systems through data sharing, dual enrollment, e-transcripts, career passports, and regional partnerships. Members asked about the council’s timeline, strategic plan, reporting requirements, and whether it would have authority to act; administration staff said the council is being stood up, its first meeting is due by the end of June, and a strategic plan is due by the end of November. Members also raised broader questions about the relationship of this work to the Master Plan for Higher Education and common course numbering. The committee then took up the Governor’s proposed $100 million one-time expansion of dual enrollment grants. Finance said the proposal would extend grants for middle college, early college, and CCAP programs, add eligibility for regional occupational centers, provide extra support for justice-involved youth, prioritize high-need LEAs, and allow funds for teacher professional development. The proposal would also reduce the minimum instructional day for certain dual enrollment students from 240 to 180 minutes to better align schedules and remove barriers. The LAO recommended rejecting the funding, arguing that dual enrollment is already growing and that the proposal does not address major fiscal barriers. The Chancellor’s Office and CDE supported the investment, emphasizing access, equity, and technical assistance, especially for rural and small districts. Members questioned instructional-minute changes, reporting on outcomes, adult learner access, and whether the funds would support ongoing or one-time costs. Next, the committee considered trailer bill language to align the definition of long-term English learners across data systems. Finance and CDE said the change would simplify identification by using a seven-year definition for LTELs and a six-year definition for students at risk of becoming LTELs, matching the dashboard and research on the typical time needed to reach English proficiency. Some members expressed concern that the proposal could delay intervention for students who have been English learners for four or five years and questioned why the issue was being handled through budget trailer bill language rather than policy legislation. After discussion, the committee voted on a motion to reject the proposal and refer it to the policy committee; the motion received two aye votes and the item was held open. Finally, the committee heard a proposal to extend the Supporting Inclusive Practices Project by one year, from June 30, 2026 to June 30, 2027. Finance said the extension would continue the existing project, while CDE raised concerns about the project’s contract structure, fiscal management, and scalability. A Marysville Joint Unified School District representative testified that SIP had helped the district bring preschool services back into district schools, expand inclusive practices, and reduce reliance on more restrictive placements. Members questioned why funds had not been fully encumbered and whether the project was best positioned to support statewide preschool inclusion goals, with CDE suggesting that existing infrastructure may already be better suited for that work.

Transcript Highlights:

• and and so we will not be signing Grant and and so we will not be signing Grant agreements<00:41
• All grants are monitored at least once over their lifetime, and larger grants are monitored probably
• All grants are monitored at least once over their lifetime, and larger grants are monitored probably
• well and finally as it gets to Grant well and finally as it gets to Grant monitor<00:44:57.200><
• documentation to advance the grant documentation to advance the grant agreement<00:56:21.960>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This would just provide grant funding, administrative funding for the grants above.
• uh grant um Senate only grant is another uh grant um Senate only grant funding<00:42:09.760> uh
• So this uh would just provide grant So this uh would just provide grant funding,<00:42:44.520>
• :43:03.359> administrative number of grant and administrative number of grant and administrative
• Um, so that covers that base grants.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• R5 through 6 is the emergency grants. The House positions on the emergency grants? Mr.
• hunger-free campus grants. hunger-free campus grants.
• grant change the employer match. Okay. grant change the employer match. Okay.
• Grant or Mr. Bone, like to come up and speak to this? Welcome, Mr. Grant.
• I'm Mark Grant.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up a series of “same and similar” provisions between the House and Senate higher education bills and adopted them one by one, with brief explanations from members and staff. The items included a cybersecurity addition for a doctoral degree program, Northstar Promise definitions and eligibility limits, self-loan provisions on institution eligibility and data disclosure, and dual training language requiring certificates, diplomas, or degrees to come from accredited postsecondary institutions. The committee also adopted an amendment to the private career school provisions that clarified exempt institutions remain within the act, and removed certain limited-license and renewal fees for institutions participating in dual training grants or the eligible training provider list. Each of these motions prevailed by voice vote. The committee then moved into policy differences between the House and Senate bills, beginning with emergency grants and hunger-free campus grants. Members discussed shifting funding from OHE-administered competitive grants to direct appropriations for the University of Minnesota and Minnesota State, while the Senate retained competitive grant access for private and tribal colleges and added reporting requirements. OHE Commissioner Dennis Olson said the added reporting would be an extra administrative task but raised no significant concerns. Testifiers from the University of Minnesota, Minnesota State, and the private college sector supported faster, more direct funding and described the grants as important for emergency housing, transportation, food insecurity, and other student basic needs. A LeadMN representative also supported the changes, saying campus staff and students wanted funds delivered more quickly. The committee also discussed direct admissions on R31. The Senate proposal would require public and charter high schools to participate in the direct admissions program by the 2029-2030 school year. Assistant Commissioner Wendy Robinson said OHE supports statewide expansion and that the program has improved FAFSA completion, college enrollment, and student retention in Minnesota. Members noted the bill had bipartisan support and heard from advocates such as Ed Allies and Students United. No votes were taken on the policy-difference items during this portion of the meeting, and the chair said further discussion of state grant and sexual misconduct policy differences would be held at a later hearing with additional OHE staff present.

Transcript Highlights:

• in the grants area.
• So the first is when they’re awarded the grant they put into their application for the grant exactly
• and Cultural District Grants.
• on the Arts (TCA), arts organization grants, and cultural district grants.
• The grant is a one-to-one matching grant that encourages private investment in the arts.

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:

• <00:46:55.400> it million and use it for for Grants it million and use it for for Grants it
• <01:00:32.640> for the SAG grants the state aid grants for the SAG grants the state aid grants
• the grant funding has been saying the grant funding has been primarily<01:28:02.239> through<
• grant.
• years ago um we require all of the grant years ago um we require all of the grant recipients<01:

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Committee held a hearing on several bills and announced at the outset that no votes would be taken because the measures would go to divisions later. The first major bill, HB 197, would require the state to pay 7.5% of political subdivision employer pension contributions for teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Representative Mike Edgar, the prime sponsor, argued the state had repeatedly reduced and then eliminated its promised share of retirement costs, shifting the burden to municipalities and property taxpayers. He said the bill would partially restore that commitment and provide relief to local governments, businesses, and taxpayers. Several witnesses testified in support of HB 197, including Representative John Cluder, Bradford selectman Marlene Fryer, the New Hampshire Municipal Association’s Margaret Burns, and Epping representative Mark Fone. Supporters said the bill would help with property tax pressure, school budgets, and municipal hiring, and they emphasized that much of the retirement cost reflects unfunded liability decisions made at the state level rather than by local governments. Committee members questioned whether the bill would change local incentives to control costs and how it would affect hiring and compensation. Burns said the state contribution would function as property tax relief because it offsets existing municipal expenses, and she noted the state is already on a long-term schedule to pay down the retirement system’s unfunded liability. After closing the hearing on HB 197, the committee opened a hearing on HB 97, introduced by Representative Tom Buco. He said the bill would continue funding for delayed and deferred wastewater projects and help municipalities finance expensive wastewater infrastructure, which he tied to housing development and local debt planning. No action or votes were taken on either bill during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Construction stage grants may not exceed the lesser. $1.5 million.
• Chair Schwertner: They are grants, yes. They are not loans.
• I heard grants and then I heard reimbursable grants.
• Reimbursable grants?
• the specific qualifications of that grant applicant. ...qualifications of that grant applicant.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Business and Commerce met with a quorum and took up a long list of House bills as pending business, voting to report many of them favorably to the full Senate. Bills reported favorably included HB 705, 1094, 2037, 3005, 3112, 3320, 3388, 3516, 3923, 4134, 4214, 4233, 4350, 4559, 4748, 4765, 5093, 5129, and 5196, with several also recommended for the local and uncontested calendar. Some measures were reported with committee substitutes, including HB 3516, HB 3848, HB 4211, and HB 14. HB 2488 and HB 3320 had some dissenting votes, while most other bills were approved unanimously or near-unanimously. The committee spent the most time on HB 14, which Senator Schwertner explained would create the Texas Advanced Nuclear Energy Office in the governor’s office and the Texas Advanced Nuclear Development Fund. The substitute would appropriate $350 million this biennium for reimbursement-based grants to support nuclear generation, supply chain development, pre-construction work, and construction-stage costs, with approval from the lieutenant governor, speaker, and governor. Senators Menendez and Nichols asked clarifying questions about whether the program involved grants rather than loans, how reimbursable grants would work, and who would evaluate applications; Schwertner said the program was modeled on the Enterprise Fund and that the grants would not be loans. After the committee had recessed, Senator Zaffirini asked to change her no votes on HB 4211 and HB 4233 to ayes so those bills could be placed on the local and uncontested calendar, while still registering no votes there. Senator Kolkhorst similarly asked to change her vote on HB 2488 to an aye for calendar purposes, while preserving her no vote. The committee then recessed again after completing its actions on the bills before it.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so that's as we roll out and things are granted. You'll see what was granted. >> Okay.
• It's the quality of the grant program, of the grant request. Okay, we're not going to...
• Can they award grants to themselves?
• >> Not on those grants.
• supposed to be given, but granted.

Keywords: Public Health and Welfare - Room 216, 4 June, 2026; 2:30 PM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the process used for awarding the grants the process used for awarding the grants and<00:03:30.159
• This proposal mirrors the assisted living grants law that passed last year, and there is a grant program
• And so there is assisted living grants.
• :07:20.880> assisted<00:07:21.360> living a grant program for assisted living a grant program
• <00:08:39.519> if were they excluded from the grant if were they excluded from the grant if

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Sometimes we don't go after grants because it would take more staff time to write the grant than the
• grant would be worth getting.
• Sometimes we don't go after grants because it would take more staff time to write the grant than the
• grant would be worth getting.
• <00:23:41.120> the<00:23:41.200> grant time to write the grant than the grant time

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• very popular um there are often grants very popular um there are often grants given<00:10:27.720
• the state grants Management's laws um the state grants Management's laws um which<00:10:59.839><
• ground projects through the grant ground projects through the grant programs<00:15:38.079> at
• the small grants and 230 of those grants the small grants and 230 of those grants are<00:32:25.399
• , or a named grant.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Legacy Finance Committee held its first meeting of the session, with members and staff introducing themselves and the chair emphasizing the committee’s role in overseeing Minnesota’s Legacy Amendment funds. The committee then received an overview of the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund from Mary Davis. She explained that the fund receives 19.75% of the 1% sales tax, is constitutionally limited to arts education, arts access, and preserving Minnesota history and cultural heritage, and is not a guaranteed base for prior recipients. She reviewed major recipients and statutory requirements, including the Minnesota State Arts Board’s 47% share, funding for the Historical Society, libraries, humanities and cultural organizations, public media, and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council. She also noted the 5% reserve requirement, reporting obligations, and a 2023 legislative directive to improve access through free or reduced admission and outreach to households regardless of income. The committee next heard from Janelle Taylor on the natural resources funds, focusing on the Clean Water Fund and Parks and Trails Fund. She said the Clean Water Fund receives 33% of Legacy revenues and must be used to protect, enhance, and restore water quality and protect groundwater, with at least 5% dedicated to drinking water sources. She described the Clean Water Council’s recommendation process and said most of the money goes to Board of Water and Soil Resources projects, with additional funding for PCA and DNR monitoring. In response to a question about Hastings and PFAS contamination, she said the legislature could appropriate clean water money if the project fits the constitutional criteria and protects drinking water sources. For the Parks and Trails Fund, she explained it receives 14.25% of Legacy revenues and is allocated under the long-standing 40-40-20 split: 40% to state parks and trails, 40% to metropolitan regional parks and trails, and 20% to Greater Minnesota regional parks and trails. House Fiscal Analysis staff then reviewed the reserve requirement and available balances, noting that each Legacy fund must keep a 5% reserve to protect against forecast changes. For the upcoming biennium, they cited approximately $327.229 million available for the Outdoor Heritage Fund, $184.73 million for the Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, and $133.13 million for the Parks and Trails Fund, with the Clean Water Fund total discussed earlier at about $311 million. Members briefly discussed the importance of the reserve and the zero-base nature of the funds. The committee then moved on to an overview of the Outdoor Heritage Fund and Outdoor Heritage Council from Mark Johnson and Joe Pelco, who explained that the fund was approved by voters in 2008, lasts 25 years, receives about one-third of the 3/8 of 1% sales tax, and is used to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands, prairies, forests, and habitat for fish, game, and wildlife. They described the council’s statutory role, the small grants program for projects from $5,000 to $500,000, and the annual recommendation process, but no votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• we call them cap capitalization grants we call them cap grants<00:43:01.079> requiring<00:43:
• base uh Federal capitalization grants base uh Federal capitalization grants and<00:44:34.839>
• must<00:46:55.200> be grants seeking with grants must be grants seeking with grants must be
• annually and uh we then Reserve grant annually and uh we then Reserve grant funding<00:50:40.200
• <01:04:31.319> and dispersements as federal grants and dispersements as federal grants and

Keywords: 1183, house