Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Education Capital topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bill would let some nonpublic special‑education residential schools compete for capital grants

Appropriations Committee · February 17, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 854 would permit select nonpublic special‑education residential schools to apply to the IAC for capital grants to repair or replace aging facilities; sponsors and dozens of witnesses said a small number of schools statewide need access to state capital funding to serve high‑need students.

Delegate Regina T. Boyce presented House Bill 854 to create a limited program allowing certain nonpublic special‑education residential schools to apply for capital grants through the Interagency Commission on School Construction.

"These schools take care of our public school students," said Scott Evans, CEO of the Benedictine School in Caroline County, describing his program’s statewide enrollment footprint and long-standing capital needs. Witnesses told the committee many residential programs operate aging campuses and currently must rely on bond bills, miscellaneous budget items or private fundraising for capital work.

Sponsor testimony described the bill as narrowly tailored: the fiscal note lists 13 potentially affected schools, but witnesses said the actual eligible pool is likely smaller — roughly five to six institutions — and that some are state-run or have different designations. John Pica and Agatha Callahan (Villa Maria/Catholic Charities) outlined life‑safety and program‑specific needs — anti‑ligature hardware, fencing, egress upgrades and HVAC — that exceed typical public‑school capital priorities.

Committee members noted there are historical ways these schools have received funding outside the school‑construction program and suggested the sponsor refine drafting and eligibility language. Witnesses promised to submit formal amendments and urged a work group or subcommittee review. The committee took the testimony and did not vote.