Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Higher Education Deferred Maintenance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Conference negotiators debate funding mixes for campus restoration act, propose mix of APEX, SGF and other transfers
Summary
Conference committee members discussed multiple funding options to pay deferred maintenance and campus restoration commitments to state universities, proposing combinations of Apex funds, ARPA/ARPA-interest and state general fund money while asking staff to draft proviso language and certification conditions.
Conference committee members negotiating the state budget discussed several proposals to fund a Campus Restoration Act aimed at deferred maintenance projects at state universities, with negotiators proposing different mixes of APEX fund transfers, state general fund (SGF) dollars and other account transfers rather than a single, final appropriation.
Members said the funding choices matter because universities have already raised matching dollars for deferred-maintenance projects and expect the state portion to follow. “They’ve already went out and worked hard to get their matches,” one committee member said during the session.
Why it matters: universities have notified negotiators that they raised private or local matches on the assumption the state would honor previously approved commitments. Committee members framed the item as a one-time, contractual/commitment payment tied to prior legislation and urged that money be available to honor those commitments in fiscal year 2026.
What negotiators discussed: participants floated multiple funding paths. Proposals included using APEX fund balances (13.2 million was cited repeatedly), SGF allocations (figures discussed included roughly 6.8 million in one proposal), and transfers from other dedicated accounts including a proposed 5 million from water-related transfers. At various points negotiators described totals in different combinations — for example, a 13.2 million APEX component paired with 6.8 million SGF to reach roughly $20 million, and alternate proposals that layered ARPA interest or other transfers to reduce SGF exposure.
Committee staff and members asked for proviso language and administrative clarifications. Negotiators requested that staff include language to preserve flexibility for the Board of Regents to certify eligibility before releasing funds, and to allow technical drafting changes when the final conference draft is prepared.
What remains unresolved: while members repeatedly signaled a desire to fund the restoration projects and to include proviso language tying disbursement to certification of matches and reserve accounting, the committee recorded multiple alternative funding mixes during the discussion and did not state a single final dollar figure on the record during the excerpts provided. Committee members asked staff to reconcile ARPA-interest availability, APEX balances and SGF impacts before finalizing the bill language.
Looking ahead: negotiators asked staff for updated balances and for a short follow-up so the committee could confirm the final combination of APEX, ARPA interest, SGF and any interfund transfers before the bill is finalized.
