Transcript Highlights:

• It includes $500 million for bridge and pavement lifecycle asset management.
• This program also includes $200 million for culvert and small bridge modernization.
• So those are the kinds of projects we want to do with that.
• So our intent with these funds is that these are all other projects.
• much-needed projects.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, State Assets, and Capital Expenditures held its first public hearing on House Bill 4257, a transportation bonding bill. The administration testified in support, describing the bill as a $1.185 billion authorization: $300 million for Chapter 90 municipal road funding and $885 million for statewide transportation capital programs. Officials said the bill would increase municipal aid by 50%, with $200 million distributed under the traditional Chapter 90 formula and $100 million based solely on road mileage to better help rural communities. They also highlighted $500 million for bridge and pavement lifecycle asset management, $200 million for culverts and small bridges, and $185 million for congestion, safety, ADA, sidewalk, and multimodal improvements. Committee members asked about how municipalities would apply, how the road-mile formula would affect rural towns, and how the bill would interact with federal funding uncertainty and debt financing. Administration witnesses explained that projects would be administered through MassDOT district offices and Grant Central, that the bill would not backfill rescinded federal funds, and that the proposal would likely use special obligation bonds backed by Fair Share revenues to reduce pressure on the Commonwealth’s general obligation debt limit. Members also pressed the administration on the shift from general obligation to special obligation financing and on whether the Chapter 90 increase keeps pace with inflation. Administration officials said the special obligation structure would be credit-rated separately and was intended to expand available capital without affecting the GO bond cap, while acknowledging that the Commonwealth’s debt portfolio would grow. They said the Chapter 90 increase would roughly restore purchasing power lost since 2012, though construction inflation has outpaced general inflation. Several members and witnesses emphasized the importance of the road-mile formula for rural communities and the need for technical assistance for small towns. The Massachusetts Municipal Association testified in strong support of the bill, calling Chapter 90 and the new infrastructure authorizations critical for cities and towns facing federal uncertainty and rising costs. The Massachusetts Aggregate and Asphalt Pavement Association also supported the bill, citing the importance of the funding for road and bridge work, the construction season, and the industry’s economic impact. A committee member asked about asphalt price inflation, and the witness said liquid asphalt costs rose sharply after COVID, including increases of around 20% in some years. At the end of the hearing, the chair said members would receive a poll by email to move the bill out quickly, and the committee then voted to adjourn.

Transcript Highlights:

• bridge aesthetics.
• non-essential Road and Bridge non-essential Road and Bridge maintenance<00:10:25.920> and
• In addition, for the first time in years, the town bridge account was not sufficient to cover projects
• In addition, for the first time in years, the town bridge account was not sufficient to cover projects
• In addition, for the first time in years, the town bridge account was not sufficient to cover projects

Bills: HF5

Keywords: tax modification, transportation funding, electric vehicle tax, Social Security subtraction, retail delivery fee, motor vehicle registration, state budget, transportation policy, 1183, house

Summary: The Transportation Committee resumed consideration of House File 5, which would reduce transportation-related revenues while also providing tax relief, including a subtraction for Social Security income, elimination of the delivery fee, and a cap on automatic gas tax indexing. The committee adopted the A1 author’s amendment, which added the phrase “using existing resources,” and then proceeded to public testimony. Representative Joy described the bill as making Minnesota more affordable, while several members and testifiers raised concerns about the impact on transportation funding and road maintenance. MnDOT Commissioner Nancy Doppenberg testified that reductions in planned transportation investments would worsen pavement, bridge, and roadway conditions, reduce construction projects and jobs, and add to an already large funding gap. Committee discussion focused on the estimated revenue losses from the bill, including about $45 million in fiscal year 2026 and $55 million annually from repealing the delivery fee, plus additional losses from capping gas tax indexing, for a combined transportation revenue reduction of about $131 million in the 2026-27 biennium. Members also asked about bridge aesthetics, paint, transit impacts, and whether other mandates and cost increases should be considered alongside revenue reductions. Supporters of the delivery fee repeal, including the Minnesota Grocers Association and Minnesota Retailers Association, argued the fee is costly to administer, confusing to consumers, and disproportionately burdens small businesses and lower-income or disabled consumers who rely on delivery. The Minnesota Association of Townships and the Minnesota Transportation Alliance emphasized that rural and local governments face major road and bridge funding needs and warned that reducing revenue would shift costs to property taxpayers or leave projects unfunded. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the committee continued with testimony and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• at that point with a few projects. at that point with a few projects.
• Um, I just know that specifically in my district, uh, there are projects, bridge projects, they're being
• We've heard about this bridge, that bridge.
• We've heard about this bridge, that bridge.
• I've got a project in Hudson on bridge.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The work session focused first on SP 492, a bill intended to give the New Hampshire Department of Military Affairs and Veterans Services authority to lease or license property for housing and related uses. Major General David Mikolitis testified that the bill is aimed at addressing affordable housing for junior enlisted service members, especially those assigned to Pease Air National Guard Base who currently face long commutes because of the Seacoast housing shortage. He said the most likely uses would be converting limited barracks space in Pembroke or Stratford into apartment-style or extended-stay housing, and possibly allowing office/co-op space for federal civilians, though he emphasized the primary purpose is housing for junior ranks. He also said any development would likely be done by a private developer through an RFP, with costs borne by the developer rather than the department. Committee members asked about whether the bill could apply to commercial uses, how taxes would work, whether revenues would go into the general fund, and whether the concept could be expanded statewide. Mikolitis said the intent was housing only, not commercial development like a Starbucks, and that any developed property would be taxable locally rather than remain tax-exempt. He said revenues would go into a dedicated Veteran Services Property Fund and be used for facilities, not the general fund. He also explained that the department has about 20 armories statewide but sees only a few viable locations for this concept, mainly Pembroke, Stratford, and possibly one other site, because the goal is to serve personnel within roughly a 45-minute drive of Pease. He noted that a proposed seven-acre parcel near Pease had already been approved by the Pease Development Authority but still needed FAA approval, and he was not optimistic about using that land for housing because of contamination and redevelopment costs. Committee discussion ended with members indicating support for OTP, but the chair said the vote would have to wait until 11 o'clock and then closed the work session on SP 492. The committee then opened a work session on SP 627 and heard testimony from Jim Jelbert, owner of CJ Bus Lines and chair of the legislature’s transportation council, who spoke in support of the bill. Jelbert argued that the measure would allow New Hampshire to raise tolls and generate significant revenue for the 10-year highway plan without directly taxing citizens, and said the money could address congestion and safety problems, including work on I-93 in Manchester and other statewide projects. He estimated the bill could generate substantial revenue over time and said toll credits could help leverage federal matching funds. He also said improved roads would benefit businesses like his by reducing vehicle wear and improving efficiency. The transcript cuts off before any committee action on SP 627 is recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• > process project evaluation project uh process project evaluation project uh process many<00:14:
• <00:18:34.080> and going to pay for part of a project and going to pay for part of a project
• preservation and then other projects preservation and then other projects besides<00:22:33.320><
• your operating budget on heaper projects your operating budget on heaper projects because<00:41:
• There are thousands of bridges, hundreds of bridges anyway, that need repair and rehabilitation.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And yes, the city is very interested in this project.
• , we're looking at making the bridge shorter.
• But in terms of the ownership of the bridge, the bridge has always been owned by the city, and so it
• ownerships, but I guess he did say that they own the bridge or maintain the bridge.
• I'm pretty sure MoDOT does not want to put in a new bridge or fix that bridge.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• :55:15.480> uh money and this project would displace uh money and this project would displace
• <01:55:22.599> um established prioritization project um established prioritization project
• <02:03:38.760> named I would like to see this bridge named I would like to see this bridge
• definitely in favor of naming the bridge definitely in favor of naming the bridge over over over
• career and in the use of the bridge career and in the use of the bridge thank thank thank you<02

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 561, sponsored by Representative Nancy Murphy, which would limit the state’s ability to discontinue, reclassify, or revert state-owned highway property to municipalities without local approval. Murphy and other supporters argued the bill would protect towns from unfunded mandates and prevent property tax increases caused by taking on costly road maintenance. Representative Wendy Thomas, Rosemarie Rung, Merrimack Town Council Chairman Finley Rothhouse, and Town Manager Paul McAuliffe all testified in support, describing the financial burden of the planned transfer of Continental Boulevard in Merrimack and warning it would set a harmful precedent for other communities. The Department of Transportation’s Steve Leon explained the department’s current authority and processes for discontinuance and reclassification, said active highways are not surplus property, and noted that the Supreme Court’s Town of Nelson decision held such reclassifications were not an unfunded mandate. The committee then closed the public hearing on HB 561. The committee next took up House Bill 578, presented by Representative Mooney on behalf of Representative Bill Boyd, to require sound barriers along the F. Everett Turnpike in Merrimack. Supporters said widening the turnpike would increase noise in nearby neighborhoods and that a 2019 NHDOT study identified 17 neighborhoods with noise levels above federal standards, though only four were included for mitigation under the current project. They argued the remaining neighborhoods should also receive relief and cited quality-of-life and property-value concerns. Senator Tim McGuire also testified in support, saying residents were experiencing unexpected and severe noise impacts and urging the committee to act outside the usual criteria to approve the barriers. The transcript provided does not show a final committee vote or action on HB 578.

Transcript Highlights:

• Six thousand, six hundred bridges.
• Our bridges are valued at $11.4 billion.
• When a bridge gets to a 5 it is at the bottom of fair, we call those bridges at risk.
• There's still priority projects, but we just can't get to them when we project our resource Availability
• It's a three-year project.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• flat, so we don't project a lot of growth in that budgetary projection that we use.
• projects are.
• If you really boil it down, it's about 100 projects that found their way into construction projects.
• know, the Roosevelt's going to end up being a 300 plus million dollar project to build that bridge back
• that bridge completed.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• larger price tag of the bridge. larger price tag of the bridge.
• >> We want to have a safe bridge. We want to have a bridge that is navigable.
• This amendment will add more transparency and accountability to the Key Bridge project.
• This amendment will add more transparency and accountability to the Key Bridge project.
• this uh bridge is.

Keywords: House streaming session for Thursday, February 12, 2026, 957, house, all

Summary: The House convened with 124 members present, opened with prayer, and approved the previous day’s journal. Members then adopted a congratulatory House resolution honoring the Kent Island High School boys lacrosse team for winning the 2025 Maryland Class 2A state championship. The House also journalized Baltimore City 2026 bond/loan authorization resolutions and moved a series of introductory House bills and bond initiatives through first reading and committee referral without objection. On the special order calendar, House Bill 28, concerning higher education/private career schools advertising, received a favorable report and was ordered printed for third reading. House Bill 226, creating a Department of Disabilities housing programs and affiliated foundations structure, was also reported favorably as amended. Two floor amendments were adopted to that bill: one clarifying that any affiliated foundation may only raise funds or provide support and may not run programs or set policy, and another restoring conflict-of-interest and ethics protections, including limits on family members and public ethics application requirements. A later amendment to HB 226 was rejected by a recorded vote of 95 in the negative, and the bill was ordered printed for third reading. The most extended debate centered on House Bill 229, which increases the Maryland Transportation Authority’s revenue bond limit from $4 billion to $5 billion to help finance the Francis Scott Key Bridge rebuild. One amendment sought to prohibit toll increases without General Assembly approval; its sponsor argued the added borrowing would likely lead to future toll hikes and that elected representatives should vote on them. The floor leader opposed the amendment, saying it would weaken MDTA’s independent rate-setting authority, harm its bond rating, and increase financing costs, while noting the bill is intended to cover bridge reconstruction costs and federal reimbursement timing. After debate, the amendment failed on a recorded vote, and HB 229 was ordered printed for third reading.

Transcript Highlights:

• or project bridge maintenance or project development<00:07:40.120> or<00:07:40.360> any
• Those could be resurfacing projects, highway reconstruction projects, bridge replacement projects, intersection
• Again, those are the folks that design the bridge projects and oversee our existing bridge projects and
• projects and oversee our existing Bridge projects and oversee our existing Bridge section<02:08:
• > in<02:24:22.800> FY Bridge projects um beginning in FY Bridge projects um beginning in FY

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met with New Hampshire DOT Commissioner Bill Cass and Finance Director Danielle Shandra to review the agency’s FY 2026 budget. Cass gave a high-level overview of DOT’s mission, organization, funding structure, and staffing trends, noting the agency has about 650 employees across five divisions. He said the Governor’s recommended FY 2026 budget totals $95.99 million, essentially flat from FY 2025, with funding primarily from Turnpike funds, Highway funds, federal sources, and a small General Fund share for non-highway units. Members asked about how Turnpike and Highway funds are treated in state accounting, and DOT explained that while they are enterprise funds restricted to their purposes, they are considered unrestricted from the statewide perspective and are appropriated through the budget process. A major topic was staffing and budget targets. DOT said its full-time staffing level has remained relatively flat since 2014 even as vehicle miles traveled increased and vacancies rose. To meet budget targets, the department unfunded seven permanent positions and nine temporary full-time positions, and later noted additional reductions in Finance, including the elimination of two full-time positions, reduced print shop equipment purchases, and deeper cuts to overtime, temporary help, equipment, and supplies in FY 2027. DOT also explained that it shifted funding for one unmanned aerial system position from General Funds to Highway Funds, saying the change was workable because the position supports highway-related work and federal-aid-eligible activities. Members asked for clarification on the state transit operating match, and DOT explained that the Legislature had previously provided about $1.8 million annually in General Funds to help local transit agencies meet federal match requirements, but that funding was not included in this budget. DOT said that could reduce the ability to draw down some federal transit funds, though the impact may not be immediate because those funds can be used over several years. The department also described its unmanned aerial system program, saying it has been used for about five years for mapping, survey work, construction oversight, and storm damage assessment, and that it now has about five drones and two full-time positions supporting the program. DOT said it is expanding cross-training so more employees can operate drones without adding positions. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• This was another $7 billion of projects, 20 projects, that we advanced and layered on top of our existing
• And so the plan for these 20 projects...
• One of the neat things about this project is there was actually an interchange, a new interchange project
• . this I-75 auxiliary lane project.
• But most of the projects on the Moving Florida Forward list are major complex projects and will take

Summary: The Committee on Transportation received a presentation from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles on Florida’s camera-based traffic enforcement programs: red light cameras, school bus stop-arm cameras, and school zone speed cameras. The department explained how each program works, the distinction between a civil notice of violation and a uniform traffic citation, and the fee distribution for each type of violation. It also reported preliminary data showing 42 jurisdictions operating red light cameras, with 496 cameras at 302 intersections and 923,133 notices of violation in fiscal year 2024-2025; for the newer school bus and school zone programs, the department said preliminary figures showed five active school bus programs and 40 active school zone programs, with prior-year totals of 61,150 school bus notices and 26,300 school zone notices. Senators asked about camera placement, school zone requirements, review procedures, and whether law enforcement or third parties are involved in reviewing violations. The committee then received an update from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue on the Moving Florida Forward Infrastructure Initiative, which used $4 billion in general revenue to advance a $7 billion package of 20 major congestion-relief projects. He said the department has used innovative delivery methods, including modified phased design-build, voluntary acceleration, and structured acceleration, to move projects forward faster and control costs. He highlighted progress on projects including I-4 congestion relief lanes, the Golden Glades Interchange, I-95 at US-1, I-75 auxiliary lanes, I-75 at Pine Ridge Road, and I-275 in Tampa, and said 80% of the plan is expected to be underway by the end of 2026, with four projects remaining in 2027. Members asked about temporary traffic patterns at Golden Glades, subcontractor opportunities, public transportation planning, contractor safety and OSHA issues, bridge strikes, logistics hubs near airports and seaports, aggregate and material supply, local government coordination, and federal transportation funding. Secretary Perdue said FDOT continuously reevaluates traffic management plans, works with small businesses and local subs, and monitors contractor safety closely, including corrective action plans after incidents. He emphasized that Florida’s transportation revenues are flat, that the state remains largely state-funded, and that additional resources are the main thing the Legislature can provide to support future infrastructure delivery. The committee adjourned after the chair requested FDOT staff provide senators with district-specific project updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I know that was a very Bridge.
• It's a pet project for the co-chair of the Ways and Means Committee, and it's a pedestrian bridge across
• So, and I believe 67 project.
• That project was funded out of bridge.
• going to come from for this project? going to come from for this project?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• My experience with it started with a bridge that ended up going bad in my township.
• general to the special Town Bridge general to the special Town Bridge account<00:05:21.800> that
• So do you believe that statewide taxes should go to local township projects?
• He asked whether statewide taxes should go to local township projects.
• Beautiful. other other infrastructure projects for other other infrastructure projects for the<00:08:

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, I've got one that's a $34 million bridge construction project. Mr.
• Chairman, I've got one that's a $34 million bridge construction project. Mr.
• One big project is a bridge replacement project on the Carnegie Wall Bridges in I-40 over to Hittus.
• One big project is replacing bridge replacement project on the Carnegie Wall Bridges in I-40 over to
• You all had mentioned that the Rio Bravo Bridge project has been suspended.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund. The sponsor offered and the committee adopted an amendment striking the section that would have imposed a 1% gross receipts tax on electricity sales. After a recap of the bill’s remaining provisions, including a $400 million seed amount and future transfers from motor vehicle excise tax revenue, the committee heard brief support from Associated Contractors of New Mexico and the Asphalt Pavement Association and no opposition. The amended bill then passed on a roll-call vote. The committee then heard HB 270, a public works/apprenticeship bill that would require contributions to approved apprenticeship and training programs or to the Public Works Apprentice and Training Fund for public works construction projects, while eliminating an exemption for certain road, highway, utility, and maintenance work. Supporters, including union carpenters, electrical workers, the building trades council, and apprenticeship advocates, argued the bill would expand training, help address labor shortages, and provide a return on public investment. Opponents from utility contractors, highway contractors, and Associated Contractors of New Mexico said they already operate federally approved in-house training programs, warned the bill would raise project costs, and argued some trades have no accessible approved programs. Members questioned how the bill would interact with existing in-house programs, whether rural contractors and nonunion firms would be affected, and whether the state-approved fund and federal highway training requirements could conflict. A proposed amendment to exempt projects of $50 million or less was introduced but tabled. After extensive debate, the committee voted 6-5 to pass HB 270. The meeting also included discussion of a prior procedural error in which HB 270 had been heard before being properly assigned, which the chair said rendered that earlier action void. At the end of the meeting, the committee received a brief New Mexico Department of Transportation District 3 presentation on district projects, budget, and construction status.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have an emergency project in Española at the Wannata Bridge.
• It's a bridge project, a bridge reconstruction project.
• So we are helping them manage a project on New Mexico 22 that is a bridge replacement project that is
• So we are helping them manage a project on New Mexico 22 that is a bridge replacement project that is
• U.S. 84 was a bridge project that we had, kind of north of Española, and that was a $5.2 million project

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee heard a District 5 New Mexico Department of Transportation presentation from Rhonda Lopez, who reviewed the district’s FY26 budget, staffing vacancies, and the status of special appropriations from 2020 through 2025. She described numerous completed and ongoing projects across the district, including roadway overlays, bridge work, intersection improvements, ADA upgrades, and maintenance projects, and also summarized STIP, TPF, LGRF, and equipment needs. Members asked about a guardrail issue near U.S. 64 in Hogback, the 5% local match for TPF projects, and the status of the New Mexico 371/U.S. 36 intersection funding agreement with the Navajo Nation; DOT said the match is secured or waived where applicable and that the Navajo agreement is nearly finalized. The committee then heard House Bill 270, which would amend the Public Works Apprentice Training Act to require contributions to apprenticeship and training programs for certain public works contracts, including highway-related work, while creating an exception where no approved apprenticeship program exists for a trade classification. The sponsor said the bill was intended to strengthen workforce development and support apprenticeship training. Contractors and asphalt industry representatives opposed the bill, arguing it would raise road project costs and duplicate existing training contributions. A motion to table failed on a tie, and a later motion to pass also failed on a tie, leaving the bill in committee. Next, the committee heard House Bill 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund, dedicate additional revenue sources including a portion of electricity GRT and motor vehicle excise tax, and begin annual distributions for federal matching funds in 2029. The sponsor and supporters said the bill would help address a multi-billion-dollar road funding gap, improve maintenance, and provide a stable source for matching federal dollars. Some members raised concerns about the electricity tax component, its effect on utility bills, and overlap with recently enacted transportation financing measures; others supported the concept but questioned timing and funding priorities. A motion on the bill resulted in a tie and failed, leaving the bill in committee. The meeting concluded with a District 4 NMDOT legislative presentation. The district outlined its geography, budget, staffing vacancy rate, completed special appropriations, active construction and maintenance projects, wildfire-related recovery work, local government funding allocations, and equipment replacement needs. Members asked about school district uses of local funding and the impact of aging equipment and weather on maintenance costs. The presentation ended without any formal action on District 4 items, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• maintenance and projects in counties, cities, and townships.
• at it, I wanted at least $75 million in there for bridges.
• But then we also have the bridge grants of $49.9 million.
• Each one is for the non-oil county road and bridge projects, and the other 11.5 percent is for the non-oil
• You know, there was a project back in my area.

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:

• . projects. projects.
• It's going to be a red-list bridge. That bridge is going to cost $93 million to fix.
• <00:25:45.560> Uh there's major projects in there. Uh there's major projects in there.
• scale projects.
• introduce new projects into that plan. introduce new projects into that plan.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This to be very clear does not apply to things like major projects around wastewater projects and around
• <00:04:44.960> around things like major projects around things like major projects around
• > uh<00:04:47.840> sewage wastewater projects and around uh sewage wastewater projects
• for like we had a uh pedestrian bridge for like we had a uh pedestrian bridge project<00:05:04.800
• It gets to who's doing the rulemaking on different types of projects, for example, wastewater projects

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 2418 from Representative Tabke, a policy bill focused on requiring local governments seeking state bonding support to show whether they have a capital maintenance or preservation plan for the project. The bill was described as a continuation of work with Chair Lee and others to ensure that when the state invests in local capital projects, the local jurisdiction has a plan to maintain the asset over time rather than returning later for additional state funding. Representative Tabke emphasized that the proposal is not intended to block projects, but to provide information to the capital investment process and encourage responsible long-term planning. Members asked several questions about how the requirement would work in practice, including whether a “no” answer on the maintenance-plan checkbox would disqualify projects, how the rule would apply to small communities, and whether major infrastructure such as wastewater or sewer projects would be exempt. Tabke clarified that the intent is informational and that projects without a maintenance plan should raise concerns, but that the proposal would not apply to major utility projects with separate funding mechanisms. He also explained that the earlier draft had been simplified after input from MMB, and that the adopted DE4 amendment adds the requirement through section 16A.86 for political subdivisions submitting bonding requests. Chair Lee and other members supported the concept as a way to ensure state-funded assets are maintained locally and not repeatedly returned to the state for repairs decades later. One member requested clarifying language to make sure the bill does not apply to water treatment or sewer projects, and Tabke agreed that such language could be added. Tabke said the language had been developed with stakeholders including the League of Minnesota Cities, Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities, and small cities, and that they had agreed on the approach. The committee adopted the DE4 amendment and then laid House File 2418 over for possible future consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• There were 58 bridges funded, 41 replacements, seven repairs, and preservation projects totaling 24,988,014
• In those four phases, we had 48 bridges, 39 replacements, and nine repair-preservation projects.
• . bridges. bridges.
• couldn't find a bridge to do for $12. couldn't find a bridge to do for $12.
• > projects.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met with a quorum, approved the June 3, 2026 minutes, and then heard a presentation from Mike Proctor of Evolve Kentucky on electric vehicles and charging infrastructure. Proctor described Evolve Kentucky as a nonprofit formed in 2016 to promote EV adoption and charger deployment, said the group has helped place more than 135 chargers at 65 locations, and reported that Kentucky EV registrations have grown rapidly but still represent about 1% of the state’s roughly 3 million vehicles. He also outlined the group’s view that EV drivers and charger operators already contribute to state revenue through annual vehicle fees, charger taxes, utility taxes, and related business taxes, and cited figures showing rising revenue collections as EV adoption increases. A major theme of the presentation was that EV owners are paying their “fair share” rather than being overcharged. Proctor said the current $126 annual EV fee is roughly comparable to the fuel tax a typical gasoline vehicle would pay, and noted that public charging can add additional tax burdens for drivers who cannot charge at home, such as those living in apartments or condos. He also argued that EVs provide broader benefits, including lower noise and air pollution, grid-stabilizing nighttime charging, tourism spending at destination chargers, and reduced road wear for passenger EVs compared with much heavier vehicles. Members questioned Proctor about whether EV owners are paying more than their fair share, how the fee compares with gasoline taxes, and whether apartment and condo residents are disproportionately affected because they rely on public chargers. Proctor responded that the fee was intended to bring EV owners into parity with gas vehicles, not to overcharge them, and said some public chargers are free while others are used by drivers who cannot charge at home. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond the minutes approval.

Transcript Highlights:

• The A31 amendment relates to the Washington Avenue Bridge.
• Draft used to have a date, a projected date of July on it, but they've since taken that projected date
• If the safety of a project.
• We talked about the bridge in Otter Tail County, the damaged bridge in Rogers, and on Main Street in
• Maintaining our roads and bridges, our local wetlands, our local roads and bridges, our county roads,