Transcript Highlights:

• , the Pease projects.
• The prison project, the woodworking project, what is the status of that?
• <00:09:29.519> the<00:09:29.680> peas projects the peas projects the peas projects<00:09
• getting projects done.
• <00:20:41.320> that projects and the scope of projects that projects and the scope of projects

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Capital Project Overview Committee held an organizational meeting. Members elected Rep. Miltz as chair and later nominated Sen. Mark McConkey as vice chair, but that appointment was carried over because he was not present to accept it. Mike Edgar was nominated and accepted as clerk. The committee also adopted its procedures and guidelines, which set deadlines for agencies to submit capital project materials and establish reporting thresholds intended to keep small projects out of the quarterly report. The main discussion centered on the Department of Administrative Services’ quarterly capital budget project report for the quarter ending December 31, 2024. Staff explained that the report compiles statewide capital projects under the committee’s guidelines and includes new projects plus large DOT projects. Several members raised concerns about projects listed as on hold or lacking updates, including the Big E agricultural building rebid, a prison woodworking facility, Pease pier projects, the General Sullivan Bridge removal, Sunapee State Beach parking lot work, and a closed-loop referral contract. Members asked for better status updates, especially on projects with no agency response, and the chair said agencies could be asked to appear before the committee if needed. Members also discussed the governor’s proposal in HB 2 to change the report from quarterly to annual. Several members opposed the change, saying quarterly reporting is more useful for oversight, and suggested the committee ask Finance to remove that section or consider raising the reporting threshold instead. There was also discussion of toll credits, with staff explaining that any other use of toll credits requires committee approval, and of the Department of Corrections’ prison planning funds, including $50 million currently available for site feasibility and design work. The committee agreed to schedule its next meeting for April 14, with June 23 to be revisited later, and then adjourned by voice vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• so want to also talk about the Reimagine I-94 project. reconnect Rondo project and it's not reconnect
• Rondo project this isn't just a Rondo project this isn't just a transportation<00:21:18.120> project
• not just a transportation project not just a transportation project project<00:26:59.039> are
• This is a project that is necessary, a project that does good, and it is a project that should not be
• This is a project that is necessary, a project that does good, and it is a project that should not be

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• . projects. projects.
• Project leases and the that approach, you folks have identified the cost for all those projects and project
• The light project.
• c> project<01:15:43.760> right not a landing project right not a landing project right those
• project lease also. project lease also.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The Act 279 working group met for an informational briefing with DHHL on its use of the $600 million appropriation and progress on the department’s implementation plan. The chair reviewed the working group’s oversight role, noting that it was created to monitor expenditures, project development, and progress toward reducing the Hawaiian Homes waitlist, and that the group must submit a progress report before the 2026 session and a final report before the 2027 session. DHHL said it had provided an updated booklet reflecting the Hawaiian Homes Commission’s February 2024 recommendations and a detailed accounting of encumbrances and project progress across the islands. DHHL highlighted several implementation themes: innovative financing and construction methods, land acquisitions and exchanges, technology, beneficiary services, and partnerships with counties and private entities. The department described a “project lease” model that gives beneficiaries access to a project rather than a specific lot, with options such as turnkey homes, owner-builder, self-help, or rent-to-purchase arrangements depending on financial qualification. Officials said this approach is intended to serve lower-income beneficiaries, expand access for people on the waitlist, and allow beneficiaries to receive support services such as financial literacy and down payment assistance. The department reported that roughly $511 million had been encumbered for infrastructure, about $152.8 million for acquisitions, financing, and beneficiary services, and about $36 million in other covered costs, with about $588.9 million encumbered as of December 31 and about $120 million expected to be spent by that date. Officials said the original implementation plan covered about 2,722 units, while the updated plan projects roughly 6,000 to 7,000 leases and 2,472 lots to be occupied. They also described phase-two needs for additional funding, including projects on Hawaiʻi, Maui, Kauaʻi, and Oʻahu, and said they would need continued legislative support, including possible bonding and private activity bond set-asides, to complete remaining projects. Members discussed the distinction between encumbered and spent funds, and DHHL explained that encumbrances reserve money for specific contracts while construction spending occurs over time through progress payments. The department also showcased examples of innovative projects, including a high-rise project in urban Honolulu financed through a mix of private activity bonds, tax credits, and state funds, and an acquisition-based project in Kapaʻa, Kauaʻi using multiple funding sources. DHHL emphasized partnerships with the City and County of Honolulu and Maui County, and said it is still assessing future projects to keep infrastructure costs manageable and ensure homes are safe and affordable for beneficiaries.

Transcript Highlights:

• YOU SEE A COMPLETE PROJECT OR A SUITE OF PROJECTS AND THEN THE ACTUAL ECOLOGICAL RESPONSE.
• IN SOME AREAS WE WILL HAVE MANY PROJECTS OR A SUITE OF PROJECTS AND WE WILL SEE THE REDUCTION AND IN
• THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS ARE IN FACT WORKING.
• DEPENDING ON THE POND THE TYPE OF PROJECT AND THE TIME IT TAKES ONCE THE PROJECT IS COMPLETED TO SEE
• YOU CAN CLICK ON A SPECIFIC PROJECT AND IT WILL TELL YOU IN DETAIL WHAT THE PROJECT IS AND WHAT THE PROJECTED

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• their project.
• All projects are completed except for the last project, which is a local LEED project with the City of
• On page number 12, this is an overview of our Transportation Project Fund projects.
• Fund and LGRF projects.
• It's a bridge replacement project.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So a capital project is a project that's a fixed asset.
• So a capital project is a project that's a fixed asset.
• A capital project is a project that's a fixed asset.
• than half of the cost of the project than half of the cost of the project that<00:16:04.240>
• project.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Capital Investment Committee met on January 16 for an informational overview on state bonding and capital investment. House Research analyst Chelsea Griffin and House Fiscal analyst Andrew Lee explained the nonpartisan roles of their offices and then walked members through the basics of Minnesota bonding: how bonds are issued and repaid, how they are categorized, and the main legal authorities governing state general obligation bonds, including the state constitution, Minnesota statutes, and federal tax law. Griffin emphasized that state GO bond proceeds must be used for a public purpose, for a purpose authorized in the constitution, as specifically described in law, and must mature within 20 years. She also noted that state GO bonding is typically originated in the House and that capital projects financed with state GO bonds generally require a three-fifths vote in each chamber. The presentation also covered practical limits and requirements on bonding projects, including the distinction between state and local GO bonding, the role of bond counsel, restrictions on bond-financed property, the prohibition on reimbursing already-paid costs, and the full funding and non-state match requirements. In response to member questions, Griffin clarified that the full funding requirement in section 16A.502 means a project must be fully funded before the appropriation is available, while section 16A.86 reflects an expectation that local governments provide about half the financing for local projects, though the legislature can choose to fund more than half or waive a local match. She also said she did not believe a bill to make the 50 percent match requirement statutory passed last session. Lee then began a spreadsheet-based overview of the 2023 capital budget laws, explaining how capital investment spreadsheets are organized and how different fund types appear in the documents. He highlighted examples such as University of Minnesota projects funded with GO bonds and Minnesota State projects using user financing, where the system contributes a share of project costs from non-state sources such as tuition or system revenues. The committee did not take any votes or formal actions during this informational meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, the bill, if you divide up the state projects and local projects, obviously the non-state
• Projects have a contingency put in for construction, and it's rare that a project uses all of its construction
• There are some P2 projects in the bill already. I'm going to put in some additional P2 projects.
• We have projects, and I think I have a list somewhere in here, dormant projects.
• We have projects, and I think I have a list somewhere in here, dormant projects.

Bills: HB2, HB3, HB799, HB1039

Keywords: capital outlay, budget, infrastructure, appropriation, general obligation bonds, bond authorization, capital improvement, financial management, state treasury, boiler safety, inspection, licensing, state fire marshal, operating certificate, regulations, local sales tax, local use tax, sales and use tax, tax audit, local collector

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, some projects come in under budget, some projects come in over budget.
• Some projects get delayed.
• And only the projects that are associated under… …shifts mid-year between projects in a bundle.
• As time passes, some projects get delayed or some projects bid in the month of April and then come in
• As time passes, some projects get delayed or some projects bid in the month of April and then come in

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee met on May 26 and first took up Senate Bill 406, which authorizes the city of Slidell to seek voter approval for a local hotel and motel occupancy tax. The bill was described as a local measure giving the city council authority to place the tax on the ballot, with members noting that similar taxing authority exists in many other municipalities. Representative Wiley moved favorable passage, there was no objection, and the bill was reported favorably. The committee then received an update from the Division of Administration’s Office of Facility Planning and Control on capital outlay savings identified through cash-flow review and project “scrubbing.” Officials said they found about $50 million in savings from updated cash flows, over-appropriations, projects bid under budget, and reduced appropriations in bundled projects. They explained that bundling projects, including some LED-related projects, allows agencies to shift savings within a bundle and manage overruns or underruns more flexibly. Members praised the savings work but asked whether the process could be moved earlier so the House could benefit sooner, and whether similar reviews could be expanded to other administering agencies and non-state projects. One member raised concerns about whether some projects, including schools and certain NGO-related items, should qualify for capital outlay funding at all, and urged a review of the statutory definition and project approval criteria. Staff said they would look at the definition, review recommendations from prior discussions, and consider ways to tighten the process. The committee then adjourned without further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is the NMFA Water Project Fund Projects, and a brief summary of it is the annual Water Project Fund
• It authorizes the NMFA to make grants and loans for water projects from the Water Project Fund.
• The projects cover... oh gosh, now I can't remember how many projects it was.
• The projects cover... oh gosh, now I can't remember how many projects it was. Hold on here, Ms.
• It lists all the projects that get funded. It lists the projects that were authorized.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Right now, the bill, if you divide up the state projects and local projects, obviously the non-state
• There are some P2 projects in the bill already. I'm going to put in some additional P2 projects.
• We have projects, and I think I have a list somewhere in here, dormant projects.
• So they've had, we're calling a dormant project, the projects that's been funded for over three years
• We have projects, and I think I have a list somewhere in here, dormant projects.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs met on May 19, 2026, established a quorum, approved the May 11 minutes, and then took up several House bills. House Bill 1039, presented by Rep. DeSotel, would add taxpayer protections in local sales tax audits by requiring clear notice that waiving prescription is voluntary, requiring a written request identifying records sought before an estimated assessment, and allowing mutual agreements to suspend interest and penalties during an audit. The committee had no opposition and reported the bill favorably. House Bill 799, handled by the State Fire Marshal’s office, would move boiler inspections into the Fire Marshal’s office and allow licensed industry inspectors to perform them, with the stated goal of improving efficiency because current staffing only covers about 20% of inspections; it was also reported favorably without objection. The committee then spent most of the meeting on House Bill 2, the capital outlay bill, with Chairman Bacala explaining that the House had worked with the Division of Administration and Facility Planning and Control to find about $50 million in savings through cash-flow adjustments, under-budget bids, over-appropriations, and bundled-project savings. He argued the bill has grown beyond a true five-year plan and that some prior funding is not transparent because money placed in projects in earlier years no longer appears in later versions of the bill. Division officials said the savings would help address deferred maintenance, especially in higher education, and that Priority 2 projects are used to absorb additional funds if more savings are found later in the year. Senator Luneau asked about dormant projects and the process for removing or reallocating funds from projects with no recent expenditures; officials said such removals must go through the Bond Commission and that they are considering ways to improve the process. Bacala then offered amendments to HB 2, saying they kept Priority 1 fully funded, added about $54 million in Priority 2 projects, and included a large Priority 5 list of member requests. The committee adopted the amendment set without objection and then reported HB 2 as amended favorably. The committee also reported House Bill 3 favorably; Bacala described it as a housekeeping measure that provides bonding capacity to move HB 2 forward. Finally, the committee granted staff authority to make technical changes to the reported bills and adjourned on Senator Lambert’s motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• specific projects.
• is the total project.
• are $35,000 projects.
• Um, that will be in the account one<00:10:24.079> projects. one projects. one projects.
• project<00:42:07.520> lead,<00:42:08.240> that project manager, one project lead,

Bills: HB0078, HB0087, SF0070, SF0068, SF0017, SF0043

Keywords: forest health, grant program, state forester, wildfire prevention, environmental conservation, habitat improvement, water development, feasibility studies, appropriations, water management, rehabilitation, irrigation, public works, agricultural supply, municipal water, funding, maintenance projects, tax assessments, state law, forestry management

Transcript Highlights:

• DOT projects, the scope and the timelines for these projects are sometimes five, ten years in the making
• For 2026, you've got two projects in District 1, and we have one project in District 6.
• projects, yes.
• That's the 2026 project. I'm not as familiar with the second project on there.
• That's the 2026 project. I'm not as familiar with the second project on there.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first heard TRIP’s annual New Mexico transportation report from Carolyn Boniface Kelly, which described deteriorating roads and bridges, congestion, safety concerns, and a large transportation funding gap. The report said more than half of major roads statewide are in poor or mediocre condition, over 170 bridges are rated poor, congestion costs drivers significant time and money, and traffic crashes and road conditions impose billions in annual costs. Members broadly agreed the report underscored the need for more stable transportation funding, with several noting the state’s recurring underinvestment and the safety risks to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2, a transportation bonding and revenue package. Senator Gonzales and Governor’s office and NMDOT representatives said the bill would authorize about $1.5 billion in additional bond debt for ready-to-go highway projects, while also increasing certain motor vehicle excise, registration, weight-distance, and EV-related fees to help support debt service and transportation funding. Supporters, including contractors, the Greater Albuquerque Chamber, the Department of Finance and Administration, and transportation officials, argued the bill would improve safety, economic development, project delivery, and funding stability, and help preserve federal dollars. Opponents, including the Rio Grande Foundation and some committee members, objected to the tax and fee increases, argued the state should use existing surpluses or other funds instead, and raised concerns about impacts on families, businesses, and local governments. Committee members questioned how projects would be selected, how the new fees were calculated, how EV surcharges would work, and whether local government distributions would be affected. NMDOT said the projects would be reported to the legislature annually, selected using crash data, asset management, and project readiness, but bond approval would remain with the State Transportation Commission. After debate, Representative Romero moved do pass on SB 2 as amended, Representative Hochman-Vigil seconded, and the committee approved the bill 7-2, with Representatives Brown and Dow voting no and several members expressing reservations despite supporting the need for transportation investment.

Transcript Highlights:

• . project. project.
• The required local match for this project is 15%, and is provided by the city, with the project approved
• Approved for a project with a potential investment of approximately $4.2 million, this project is seeking
• The required local match for this project is 15%, and is provided by the city, with the project approved
• Approved for a project with a potential investment of approximately $4.2 million, this project is seeking

Keywords: 00:09 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:42 Approval of Minutes 01:07 Information Items 04:05 Lease Rpt - Finance and Administration Cabinet 18:59 OFM - Economic Development Fund Grants 25:42 OFM – KY Housing Authority 31:30 Remaining 2025 Meetings 33:26 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with quorum, approved the September meeting minutes, and received a set of information reports on capital projects, debt, school district bond issues, UK and KCTCS asset preservation projects, and the Louisville Arena Authority’s financial report, with the latter noted as lengthy and expected to be discussed further in person in December. The committee also heard a Finance and Administration Cabinet lease report covering three leases: a temporary lease for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services in Louisville due to ongoing maintenance and safety issues at its current site, a Department of Juvenile Justice lease in Hardin County for a day-treatment/alternative school program, and a Warren County lease renewal. Members questioned the Hardin County lease about the higher rate and limited competition; agency staff explained the specialized school setting, transportation and program requirements, and the difficulty of attracting bidders for alternative-school space. The lease package was approved after roll call. The committee then considered seven economic development grants: four EDF grants and three KPDI grants. The projects included infrastructure for Allen County’s industrial park, flood-related repairs for Weddington Plaza in the Big Sandy area, an Owensboro manufacturing expansion for Mscan America, a new Louisville manufacturing facility for Anthro Energy, a Henderson due-diligence study, a Paducah spec building, and utility extensions for the Riverbend site in Carrollton. Staff said the projects had been approved by KEFA and recommended by the relevant cabinet leadership, and the committee approved them by roll call. Finally, the committee reviewed a new Kentucky Housing Corporation conduit bond issue for about $43 million for 233 Louisville housing units, which was approved. It then took up five SFCC debt issues together: new money for an Edmonson County elementary school and Knox County middle school gym improvements, plus refundings for Callaway, Hardin, and McCracken counties. Members raised concerns that the refundings were bundled together and that some did not appear to meet a newly referenced 3% net present value savings guideline, but the package was still approved on a 5-2 vote. The meeting ended with calendar updates, including a November 20 meeting at noon and a December 16 meeting featuring the Yum Arena presentation, followed by adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• District formation and project.
• That was necessary to facilitate a full project for some of the projects they have been working on.
• The project is not 100% financed, so we want some skin in the game to move forward with the projects.
• Some of the projects that were approved on the housing side include workforce housing projects.
• So when it says 11.9 million for the Midtown project and 13.2 million for this total project cost, is

Transcript Highlights:

• So hanger uh generating uh project.
• in place for this project.
• place for this project. place for this project.
• for this project. for this project.
• if these projects don't move forward? if these projects don't move forward?

Keywords: 00:01 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:47 Approval of Minutes 01:07 Airport Projects 12:17 Riverport Projects 38:27 Electric Vehicle Charging Program 54:10 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Transportation met on July 15, 2025, approved the June 4 minutes, and heard updates on aviation and riverport funding programs. Commissioner Mark Carter of the Kentucky Department of Aviation reported on the $200,000 grants for general aviation airports included in House Bill 1, saying the money is being used mainly for hangar projects, fuel trucks, parking lot resurfacing, airport equipment, crew cars, and public education efforts. He said about 25 hangar-related projects were reported, with an estimated 60 T-hangars and four or five box hangars supported, and noted that the grants are often used to match federal funds. He also said the state’s jet fuel tax revenue generates about $23 million annually, up from about $19 million in 2021, and that most airports are now compliant with the ADS-B/VOR-related reporting system required in budget language, which has improved reported operations and may help airports qualify for FAA grants. Members asked about the pace of airport projects, the limited number of contractors for hangar construction, and whether airports could finance hangars themselves. Carter said timing has generally been good, though federal projects have slowed somewhat and contractor capacity remains a challenge, and he said there is no statute preventing airports from financing part or all of a hangar project. Questions also focused on the long-term need for hangars and the effect of the jet fuel cap, with Carter saying general aviation airports still have significant hangar demand and rely on state assistance because hangars are a key revenue source. Jeremy Edgeworth of the Transportation Cabinet and Brian Wright of the Kentucky Association of Riverports then reviewed riverport projects funded through House Bill 265 and House Bill 1. Edgeworth said the cabinet’s riverport grant program awarded $500,000 in each of fiscal years 2025 and 2026 for 13 projects under an 80/20 match, and that House Bill 1 provided $7.5 million per year for public riverports with no local match. He described completed or underway projects at multiple ports, including equipment replacements, dock and road repairs, material handling upgrades, mooring cell rehabilitation, and a waterline loop at Owensboro. He said $12.6 million of the KPRCM funds had been awarded across 20 projects, with about $2.4 million still to be awarded later in the fall. Wright said the riverport investments are helping ports replace aging assets, expand capacity, and match federal dollars, but he also said the statewide capital need remains large, with the current list of top projects already in the $90 million range and longer-term needs still estimated at $60 million to $90 million. Members asked about timelines and future needs, and Edgeworth said many of the larger projects will take two to five years because of permitting and coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers. No additional votes or formal actions were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• And his response to that was, a fourth of a bad project is still a bad project.
• And his response to that was a fourth of a bad project. It's still a bad project.
• That inflation extends to every project; it's not specific to this project.
• The Delta Conveyance Project and other critically needed infrastructure projects.
• It looks like we are projected... ...projections for this.

Summary: The hearing opened with budget framing from the chair and the LAO, who said the May Revision addresses roughly a $14 billion budget problem and that the environment and transportation subcommittee’s proposals account for about $1.9 billion of the solution. The LAO urged members to focus on solutions that do not worsen out-year deficits, to preserve reserves, and to defer major policy changes that are not necessary to pass the budget, including the newly introduced water-related trailer bills. Members also raised concern about a late-dropped Olympic-related trailer bill, which the LAO likewise suggested should be deferred for fuller review. The first major item was the Delta Conveyance Project and related water quality control plan trailer bills. The administration argued the proposals would streamline permitting, water rights proceedings, judicial review, and land acquisition, and would clarify DWR’s bond authority for the project. DWR said the project is needed to protect water supply reliability against drought, earthquakes, sea level rise, and other climate-related disruptions, and that the tunnel would help move water when conditions are wet and safer for the environment. Committee members from both parties questioned the timing, the use of budget trailer bills for major policy changes, the scope of the CEQA and water-rights changes, the lack of a bond cap, cost growth, and eminent domain protections. The LAO recommended deferring both water trailer bills without prejudice. Public comment was sharply divided, with labor, water agencies, and some business groups supporting the project as climate adaptation and reliability infrastructure, while environmental, tribal, fishing, county, and community groups opposed it as an attempt to bypass public process and weaken protections. The committee then briefly heard the DMV’s Digital Experience Platform fee trailer bill, which would reinstate a $1 system improvement fee to help fund the vehicle-registration phase of the project. DMV said the fee would raise about $7 million annually and offset roughly $59 million to $60 million of project costs, while the LAO noted it would help but would not solve the Motor Vehicle Account’s broader structural gap. The hearing then moved to California High-Speed Rail, where the new CEO presented an updated plan and said the project remains a major climate and infrastructure investment. He reported a revised Merced-to-Bakersfield cost range of $34.9 billion to $38.5 billion, said the agency is trying to reduce risk through direct procurement of materials, and argued that stable annual funding is needed to avoid higher costs from delays.

Transcript Highlights:

• and done further work on this project. and done further work on this project.
• that we use to plan out our projects. that we use to plan out our projects.
• project at the lighthouse right now. project at the lighthouse right now.
• Again, more projects over at Mill City. Again, more projects over at Mill City.
• . projects. projects.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee first approved the March 5 minutes, then heard a presentation from Balig Engineering on cost drivers for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in small Minnesota communities. The testifier said most Minnesota communities are small, and that limited local staff, complex funding requirements, and the need to combine multiple funding sources make projects expensive and labor-intensive. He cited examples of aging infrastructure, including a Tracy street collapse and failing water mains, and said federal funding can help but often requires extensive reports that can cost tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of staff hours. He also pointed to inflation, supply-chain disruptions, colder climate requirements, higher material and labor costs, limited competition among contractors and suppliers, and newer treatment requirements such as PFAS removal and cybersecurity controls as major cost drivers. Members asked whether reduced bonding or less frequent state funding would lower prices, whether annual bonding bills provide market certainty, how regionalization could be encouraged, and whether tightening specifications adds costs. The testifier said stopping work would likely drive contractors out of the market and reduce competition, which could raise prices later, and that consistent funding helps keep contractors in Minnesota. He said regional water systems such as Red Rock Rural Water and Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water are already helping lower costs and that legislators could encourage more regionalization through incentives. He also said some specifications and federal requirements, especially around treatment plant controls and cybersecurity, increase costs, though some standards like deeper water-main burial are necessary. The committee then moved on to the Minnesota Department of Veterans Affairs, where John Kelly began presenting the governor’s 2026 capital budget recommendations and described the department’s mission, statewide network of veterans homes and cemeteries, and service to nearly 300,000 veterans and dependents.

Transcript Highlights:

• There was a capital project loan.
• It was a fencing project in Iambito that six years ago was a fencing project in Iambito.
• But a 1% project, and I just explained mine, a simple fencing project, these are projects that have not
• , but as a new project later on.
• But these water projects and road projects, Mr. Chairman, just seem to go on. Forever.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have projects... in motion and we have projects in planning, but more funding is needed, more state
• These projects are the most attractive projects and the ones that we actually want. Texas.
• The state's financing is the best available. for public projects like this and other water supply projects
• So that's a pretty. specific group of the types of projects that we fund, and all of those projects..
• would finance that project collectively.

Bills: HB 1089, HB 1163, HB 1177, HB 1238, HB1318, HB1400, HB1407, HB1532, HJR7, HJR7

Keywords: coastal protection, environmental management, Gulf Coast, storm risk management, funding, Texas General Land Office, healthcare, insurance reform, patient access, insurance regulation, affordable care, health insurance, consumer rights, coverage transparency, claims process, insurance regulations, aggregate production, environmental impact, financial responsibility, reclamation

Transcript Highlights:

• Next, the middle table shows PSCOC fund projection fund project awards.
• the stacking of multiple projects.
• So, just the more projects, great.
• This project has, just to give you some feedback, it's a P-20 project, so it's quite an old project as
• With all of the other projects, thank you for that; it's a perfect project.