Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:28.080><c> put</c><00:09:28.320><c> on</c><00:09:28.480><c> hold</c> projects put on hold projects
• Thank you. development projects that bring development projects that bring prosperity<00:11:46.079><c
• </c><00:12:51.839><c> and</c> a pot for uh competitive projects and a pot for uh competitive projects
• </c><00:13:14.000><c> all</c> fall and uh so there are projects all fall and uh so there are projects
• </c><00:13:43.920><c> We</c> project instead of $5 million. We project instead of $5 million.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was the project manager on this study.
• sidewalk projects.
• Are we going to have a good understanding of what these projects, to administer these projects, what
• I want maximum amount of projects actually happening. are you looking of projects actually happening.
• It is subject to the project.

Committee: Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Summary: The committee began with member introductions, then heard a presentation on a draft final report studying alternative funding mechanisms for sidewalks and related pedestrian infrastructure. Consultants said current local funding sources are insufficient, with most jurisdictions unable to complete planned sidewalk networks within 50 years. They evaluated four options: a sidewalk utility fee, a modified transportation benefit district sales tax, a new real estate excise tax option, and expanded stormwater fee use for ADA sidewalk ramps. The consultants recommended authorizing the modified TBD sales tax and new REET option, considering a sidewalk utility despite legal uncertainty, broadening any authorization to all pedestrian improvements, and not pursuing the stormwater fee option. Members asked about legal authority, fairness, revenue adequacy, and whether jurisdictions had been consulted; the presenters said state enabling legislation would likely be needed for a sidewalk utility and that fairness could be defined either by direct benefit or by need. The committee then received an update on the 2025 assessment of city transportation funding needs. The consultants reported that city transportation revenues have grown in some local and federal categories since 2019, but state revenues have remained relatively flat and smaller cities are especially affected by declining fuel tax revenues and limited tax bases. They estimated annual city transportation needs at $4.25 billion, average annual spending at $1.89 billion, and a funding gap of $2.37 billion, larger than in the prior study because of updated data, inclusion of system improvements, and higher preservation costs. Draft recommendations focused on reducing costs and improving efficiency, preserving and increasing state support, and expanding local funding options, including preservation-first spending, a permanent federal fund exchange program, streamlined review processes, better coordination with WSDOT, possible property tax flexibility, and exploration of new local tools. Members raised questions about design standards, the role of density and transit, federal compliance, and whether the report would identify specific consolidation or process changes. The committee also heard a project update on evaluating zero-emission vehicle and electrification programs funded by the Climate Commitment Act. Consultants said they had reviewed roughly 23 programs and projects across seven agencies and were now evaluating options to improve delivery, including process improvements, reorganizing programs, or consolidating governance and administrative functions. Early findings highlighted staffing shortages, duplication and variation across agencies, differing levels of risk, and the challenge of coordinating climate priorities across agencies with other core missions. Members asked about program outcomes, administrative costs, whether some programs should have exit strategies, and how to strengthen the EV Coordinating Council. Finally, WSDOT provided an implementation update on its new public-private partnership authority under SB 5801, saying work is underway to prepare governance, legal, policy, and organizational structures ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> major project we did up in Grant County. major project we did up in Grant County.
• It's a to be a major project.
• </c> those funds into some of these projects. those funds into some of these projects.
• project plan.
• project plan.

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee heard testimony from the Energy and Environment Cabinet on the state-owned dam repair program and Kentucky’s electric grid resilience program. On dams, Commissioner Tony Hatton explained the legal definition and hazard classifications for Kentucky dams, noting there are 975 regulated dams statewide, including 76 state-owned dams, and that hazard ratings are based on potential loss of life or property damage if a dam fails. He described the cabinet’s screening criteria, including inundation mapping, engineering condition, and compliance status, and said the cabinet uses a design-bid-build procurement process to manage public funds responsibly. Hatton outlined current and planned dam projects funded from the prior biennium, including Willisburg Lake in Washington County, where work will address hydraulic capacity, unstable downstream slopes, and likely require a coffer dam, flood wall, auxiliary spillway, and raw water line replacement. He also said Big Bone Lake State Park Dam will be decommissioned, Clemens Lake Dam at Morehead State University is in design for a major rehabilitation, and additional projects include Marion County Sportsman’s Dam, Chenoa Lake Creek/Canning Creek Dam, and a rehabilitation study for the Mud River at Lake Malone. The cabinet also requested $500,000 for routine repairs and maintenance. Members questioned cost estimates, inflation, and whether it would be better to fund design separately; cabinet officials said estimates are current best engineering estimates, costs have generally stayed within about 10%, and the current funding flow requires all funds to be available before bidding. The committee then received a status update on the electric grid resilience program, a five-year federal formula grant under Section 40101(d) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Officials said Kentucky has received years one through three of funding, which has been allocated to state park facilities and municipal electric utilities, while years four and five have not yet been received and would go to distribution cooperatives and remaining municipal utilities. Projects discussed included upgrades at Ken Lake State Park and Kentucky Dam Village, plus municipal projects in Owensboro, Princeton, Williamstown, and Hopkinsville. The cabinet said the selected projects focus on hardening infrastructure, replacing poles, wires, conductors, and transformers, improving vegetation management, and adding or upgrading outage management systems. Officials reported that all projects are under contract and moving into subcontracting and construction, while the Department of Parks is finalizing an agreement with Western Kentucky Rural Electric Cooperative for the park-related work.

Transcript Highlights:

• delivery of large, complex projects, usually transportation projects, and I use a lot.
• Some of those projects work out, and some of those projects don't.
• and deliver the project.
• The types of projects—the projects that would make a good CMGC project—are going to limit some competition
• or scope of the project."

Bills: HB2065 , HB2462 , HB2621 , HB3187 , HB3539 , HB3563 , HB3726 , HB4164 , HB4207 , HB4368 , HB4706 , HB4916 , HB4950 , HB4967 , HB5177 , HB4429 , HB5597

Committee: House Transportation

Keywords: commercial vehicles, parking regulations, residential areas, local governance, land use, traffic safety, high occupancy vehicle lane, pregnant operators, transportation, parental rights, motor vehicle regulations, live video feed, state agency, transparency, public safety, regional transportation, mobility program, sales tax, public infrastructure, local government

Transcript Highlights:

• We can bring in project financing.
• like the Trap Rock project.
• There was something called the ARPA-E MINER project, and that project was an investigation of critical
• Most of these projects are bioethanol and natural gas processing, and increasingly we're seeing projects
• There are also some small power projects, hydrogen, and direct air capture projects.

Committee: House Environment & Energy

Transcript Highlights:

• know, some of the projects.
• </c><00:03:52.200><c> I</c> you know, some of the uh projects. I you know, some of the uh projects.
• ><c> uh</c> think most projects that uh think most projects that uh that<00:03:54.640><c> will</c><00
• </c> in your deliberation of the projects in your deliberation of the projects going<00:08:59.960><c>
• </c> mitigation projects came into play. mitigation projects came into play.

Committee: Joint Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks

Transcript Highlights:

• or fund private or public projects or agencies to build their own projects, or they can be what we call
• for project proposals.
• The construction exemption does not apply to projects on lands covered by water or projects that require
• I'm pretty proud of that project.
• You know, the Local Project Review Act defines a project permit.

Committee: House Local Government

Summary: The committee heard presentations on the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and recent permitting reforms affecting local governments. Department of Ecology staff explained SEPA’s purpose, the review process, exemptions, planned actions, and recent housing-related changes, including transit-oriented development exemptions and SEPA appeals protections for certain local ordinances. Members asked about repeated SEPA reviews, cultural and historic resource review, and how SEPA interacts with NEPA. Seattle’s Department of Construction and Inspections said recent SEPA exemptions have reduced the number of reviews for residential projects and supported more housing permitting, and the city is considering raising exemption thresholds further. The State Building Code Council provided an update on code adoption timelines and implementation of legislative housing measures. Council staff said the 2024 code cycle is delayed administratively, with final adoption moved to May 15, 2026 and implementation targeted for May 1, 2027 unless legislative or administrative changes allow the current November 1, 2026 implementation date to remain. They also reported progress on code updates for single-stair buildings, multiplex housing, dwelling unit size, and temporary emergency shelter standards, with draft language underway. The committee then reviewed recent permitting legislation and implementation. Commerce staff summarized bills from 2023 and 2025 that set permit processing deadlines, limited pre-application requirements, restricted design review to clear and objective standards, changed historic designation rules, and expanded middle housing, ADU, lot split, passive house, self-certification, transit-oriented development, and parking-related requirements. Commerce also described its studies, guidance, grants, and reporting work under SB 5290, noting that 2024 data showed mixed performance and that local governments need better checklists, digital tools, staff training, and clear application standards. Issaquah and Kitsap County described local efforts to streamline permitting through code updates, pre-application meetings, software improvements, and a 2x6 review process, while also warning that staffing shortages, complex site conditions, coordination with state agencies, and reporting burdens continue to slow permits. No votes were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• in terms of having project managers and having the ability to manage projects.
• of our projects.
• The Tower Project is exactly the type of project— The Tower Project is exactly the type of project that
• projects to completion.
• Well, nearly every campus got a project, a significant project.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Higher Education

Summary: The Joint Committee on Higher Education held its second public hearing of the 194th General Court on capital investments in higher education, focusing primarily on H.54, the Bright Act, along with H.1426/S.949 on green and healthy public colleges and universities and deferred maintenance, and H.1424 on capital investment in Gateway Cities. Chairs and administration officials framed the hearing as a response to aging campus infrastructure, climate goals, workforce needs, and federal pressures on higher education, and explained that testimony would be taken from pre-registered speakers in person and virtually. University of Massachusetts leaders strongly supported the Bright Act, describing large deferred maintenance backlogs, aging buildings, and the need to decarbonize campuses while modernizing research and teaching facilities. UMass officials said the bill would help keep tuition and fees lower by reducing the need for campuses to finance capital work themselves, and argued that the investments would improve competitiveness, support research, and create construction jobs. Governor Healey, Lieutenant Governor Driscoll, Secretary of Education Tuttweiler, and Secretary of Administration and Finance Gorzkowicz also backed the bill, saying it would leverage Fair Share surtax revenues for a proposed $2.5 billion in campus investments plus additional targeted grants, and that it would support affordability, economic growth, and climate resilience. Committee members asked about the balance between deferred maintenance and decarbonization, the role of grant programs versus direct spending, the impact on tuition and fees, and how the plan would help campuses respond to federal cuts such as NIH and NSF funding. Administration officials said the proposal was designed to be phased in quickly, with some projects ready to start immediately and others taking longer, and that the grant programs would be structured to include all campuses equitably. They also said the plan would build on an existing financing model similar to the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and could help campuses avoid future tuition increases tied to capital costs. Additional testimony came from MassBay Community College, where President David Podell and recent nursing graduate Deanna Cavazos described the benefits of a new Framingham campus building and said community colleges need modern labs, better planning capacity, and deferred maintenance support to serve the enrollment growth from MassReconnect and MassEducate. State university leaders, including President Mary Grant, President Linda Thompson, and President John Keenan, said their campuses face outdated classrooms, insufficient electrical capacity, and aging facilities, and urged passage of the Bright Act as a long-overdue investment in student success and workforce preparation.

Transcript Highlights:

• To the trucks that will be coming through when our project, and our project is going to bring incredible
• Fund, which is for kind of small projects.
• There's a municipal arterial program for little to medium projects, and there's a transportation project
• This project that I have here, there's a presentation that I gave to you, is a beautification project
• And the next we have phased projects, meaning that we've already funded part of the project, and they

Transcript Highlights:

• But for a factory-built project, Any stick-built project also may have delays and inspections, et cetera
• AB 2469 makes the responsibility clear: if a project requires new or enhanced infrastructure, the project
• Population and development projections.
• But the bill assumes that once a project is identified, But the bill assumes that once a project is identified
• That efficiency can make project finances more certain and project delivery faster, all to the benefit

Summary: The committee hearing covered a long agenda of local government and housing-related bills, with the chair repeatedly noting the committee was operating without a quorum for much of the meeting. Several measures were heard with no opposition, including AB 2639 on Merced County flood control coordination, AB 1788 on allowing best-value contracting for general law cities and the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, AB 2058 on reducing duplicative permitting and inspection costs for factory-built housing, AB 2576 on clarifying historic resource protections in a housing law, AB 2568 on increasing the compensation cap for water district board members, AB 2224 on updating county recorder fees and requiring electronic recording, AB 2469 on water-supply review and cost responsibility for data centers, and AB 2397 on requiring local governments to justify denials of certain housing-finance decisions. Most of these bills were presented as targeted fixes to improve efficiency, reduce delays, or modernize outdated statutes, and the authors generally requested aye votes and noted committee amendments where applicable. The most extended debate centered on AB 1751, which would streamline approval of qualifying townhome projects while setting a $28 hourly minimum wage floor for construction workers on covered private projects. Supporters argued the bill would expand homeownership opportunities, raise wages for largely non-union residential workers, and preserve existing prevailing wage law while adding enforcement tools and developer liability. Opponents, including several building trades and labor organizations, argued it would undercut prevailing wage standards, create a race to the bottom, and potentially affect wage-setting more broadly. Committee members asked detailed questions about land-use barriers, the relationship to prevailing wage, and whether the bill would affect unionized work; the author and supporters responded that it applies narrowly to private for-sale townhome projects and does not alter prevailing wage requirements. AB 2469 also drew a substantive split. Supporters said data centers should be required to provide water-supply assessments before approval, pay for infrastructure they trigger, and account for impacts on overdrafted groundwater basins and local ratepayers. Opponents from the Chamber of Commerce, Data Center Coalition, counties, and tech groups argued existing law already covers water planning, that the bill imposes unique and burdensome requirements on one industry, and that some reporting provisions could raise security concerns. The author responded that the bill is about front-end planning and local accountability, not daily reporting, and emphasized the hyperlocal strain data centers can place on small water systems. No final votes were taken during the hearing because the committee lacked a quorum, though members repeatedly indicated support or intent to vote aye once a quorum was present.

Transcript Highlights:

• Capital projects are funds that are appropriated by the state Legislature for capital projects, along
• Capital projects are funds that are appropriated by the state legislature, Capital projects are funds
• many projects are outstanding?
• Universities are starting on those projects, and those 88 projects total about $1.2 billion.
• That totals a total project cost of $1.4 billion for those 18 projects.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to hear an overview of State University System finances from the Board of Governors and detailed budget presentations from Florida State University, the University of Central Florida, and the University of North Florida. The witnesses explained how university budgets are organized into fund categories such as education and general, contracts and grants, auxiliaries, local/designated funds, capital projects, and component units such as direct support organizations. They also described carry forward funds, the statutory reserve and spending-plan requirements, the PICO/HECO capital outlay process, and how universities use investment accounts, audits, and board oversight to manage restricted and unspent funds. The universities emphasized that most operating dollars are restricted to specific uses and that state support helps keep tuition low. Members asked about differences in funding levels among institutions, especially why FSU receives more funding than UCF despite lower enrollment. Officials said preeminence funding, performance funding, and special legislative appropriations explain much of the difference, and the Board of Governors noted that Florida now has four preeminent universities, with UCF nearing that status. Questions also focused on what happens to unspent carry forward money, how it is invested, and whether the Board of Governors or Legislature can require funds to be returned; officials said the money is invested conservatively, subject to board and audit oversight, and can roll forward under a detailed spending plan, though the Legislature can change funding levels. The committee also discussed capital projects, with members asking about delays, inflation, and whether more projects should be phased or funded faster; witnesses said PICO funds remain with the state until needed and are reimbursed as construction proceeds. A substantial portion of the discussion covered athletics, research, student fees, and endowments. The universities said athletics is generally expected to be self-supporting, though limited use of auxiliary or carry forward funds may be allowed for projects benefiting the broader student body. They also described the financial pressures from name, image, and likeness changes and new NCAA-related costs, and said institutions are planning for those changes now. On research, the universities explained sponsored research funding, indirect cost recovery, compliance obligations, and tech transfer, but did not provide specific commercialization revenue figures and said they would follow up. Members also asked about student fee increases, student input, counseling and wellness funding, and how housing costs affect affordability; the universities said student committees and boards review fees, and aid packaging is intended to keep student debt low. Endowments were described as being held in separate foundations/DSOs with independent investment committees and used mainly for scholarships, faculty support, and research.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> for years to get this Transit project for years to get this Transit project ready<00:13:03.120><
• </c> rail projects rail projects representative representative representative Robbins<00:43:30.559><c
• extension project.
• </c> 2040 now now they're projecting 2040 now now they're projecting 12,700<01:23:28.159><c> weekday<
• </c><01:23:40.560><c> are</c> money but but the the projections are money but but the the projections

Transcript Highlights:

• The hazardous waste generator fee would be capped at $100,000 per project per year for infill projects
• and $250,000 per project per year for master developed projects.
• While the project itself was privately financed, most... ...the project itself was privately financed
• However, projects such as Wellhead's projects, energy storage projects, our members are trained to build
• those projects as well.

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Revenue and Taxation heard several bills dealing with taxes, transit funding, clean energy incentives, veterans’ property tax relief, housing-related remediation fees, and federal tax conformity. Early in the hearing, SB 63 was presented as a Bay Area transit funding measure authorizing a local sales tax ballot measure for BART, Caltrain, Muni, and AC Transit, with supporters emphasizing service cuts that could occur without new funding and an opponent raising Proposition 13/218 concerns. SB 56 and SB 296 both focused on disabled veterans’ property tax relief, with supporters arguing that disability compensation should not count as income for eligibility and that the bills would help veterans remain housed; SB 296 was described as a broader exemption for 100% disabled veterans and surviving spouses. SB 86 sought to extend and expand the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority’s sales and use tax incentive program, including fusion energy, and SB 302 would conform state tax law to federal clean energy credit provisions to help projects monetize federal incentives. SB 328 would cap Department of Toxic Substances Control fees for contaminated-soil remediation on housing projects, with supporters saying current fees can make infill housing infeasible. SB 711 would update California’s tax conformity date to January 1, 2025 to align with federal tax law changes and simplify filing. After quorum was established, the committee took formal action on the bills. SB 63 was approved 4-2 and sent to Appropriations; SB 86, SB 302, SB 328, SB 711, and SB 293, SB 359, SB 419, SB 587, SB 603, SB 663, SB 710, and SB 785 were approved with various amendments and sent to Appropriations, while SB 56, SB 284, SB 723 were held in committee and SB 296 and SB 353 were made two-year bills. The committee also adopted amendments on several measures, including reducing SB 86’s aggregate cap, delaying SB 302’s effective date with a sunset, and narrowing SB 710’s exclusion to certain nonresidential solar systems. The hearing concluded with the chair thanking members and staff and adjourning the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• I was the project manager on this study.
• sidewalk projects.
• I am the project manager from CPCS for this effort.
• It is subjective to the project.
• We have built over $20 million in projects and over 200—well, we're going to hit our 200th project this

Committees: Joint Transportation , Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• The, it's project specific.
• I think applicants think we're deciding which projects are good and which projects we don't like.
• </c> wastewater project by March 31st, 2026. wastewater project by March 31st, 2026.
• Utility, the new debt service from the project, and then, once that new project is in place.
• So, by average project cost, it's double the cost to do water infrastructure projects.

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> reduced by the size of our projected reduced by the size of our projected structural<00:04:58.000
• </c><00:09:24.560><c> over</c> below trend GDP growth projected over below trend GDP growth projected
• We're now projecting individual income tax receipts to be 4.6% more than we projected earlier.
• This increase is projected earlier.
• </c> above previous projections. above previous projections.

Summary: Minnesota Management and Budget Commissioner Aaron Campbell, State Economist Dr. Tony Becker, and State Budget Director Anna Mingi presented the November 2025 budget and economic forecast. Campbell said the state now projects a nearly $2.5 billion surplus at the end of the 2026-27 biennium, about $575 million better than the end-of-session estimate, but also a projected negative balance of about $2.9 billion in FY 2028-29, reflecting a worsening structural imbalance. He said the budget reserve stands at $3.4 billion, with cash flow and budget reserves totaling $3.8 billion after a $244 million addition, and emphasized that Minnesota’s AAA bond rating and reserve policy remain strengths even as future sessions will need to address the long-term gap. Becker said the national economic outlook has changed only modestly since February, but growth remains below trend through the forecast horizon. He cited slower consumer spending, weak private investment, continued tariff uncertainty, lower projected immigration, and modest inflation that stays near 3% through 2026 before easing. Revenue forecasts for the next biennium were revised up to $66.3 billion, driven mainly by higher individual income tax receipts and other revenue, partly offset by lower sales and corporate tax forecasts. He also noted risks from federal policy changes, the recent shutdown’s effect on data availability, and possible equity market volatility. Mingi said general fund spending is projected to rise sharply, with current biennium spending up $3.4 billion from end-of-session estimates and planning-year spending up $1.9 billion. She attributed much of the increase to carryforward from prior one-time appropriations, discretionary inflation, and especially Medical Assistance. MA costs are projected to be about $2.5 billion higher over 2025-29, largely because managed care rates rose more than expected due to higher utilization and higher-cost services, including pharmacy costs, while long-term care and disability waiver costs also increased. In response to questions, officials said the federal reconciliation bill had only a relatively small effect on the health care changes, and that the carryforward amounts reflect unspent prior appropriations that now show up in later years rather than new spending.

Transcript Highlights:

• Coastal Texas Project.
• But the Coastal Texas Project, just for everybody to be aware, is a very long-term project.
• And those those projects would be like flood prevention projects, mitigation projects, channel improvements
• projects.
• . projects.

Committee: House Appropriations - S/C on Articles VI, VII, & VIII

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> uses the word language any other project uses the word language any other project that<00:05:20.479
• </c> very large aspen enhancement project very large aspen enhancement project that<00:09:40.399><c>
• </c><00:11:53.760><c> and</c> completing crossboundary projects and completing crossboundary projects
• The one last projects are valuable.
• </c> we also saw out of that initial project we also saw out of that initial project at<00:34:59.839>

Bills: HB0078 , SF0012 , SF0013 , SF0052 , SF0069 , SF0070

Committee: House Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and then what it does is it just simply strikes out the named project so that every project that
• </c><00:19:23.919><c> But</c> projects that are listed. But projects that are listed.
• </c> unfortunately, there are some projects unfortunately, there are some projects that<00:19:26.320>
• </c><00:19:51.360><c> that</c><00:19:52.080><c> was</c> project so that every project that was project
• project.

Transcript Highlights:

• for the project.
• </c> and the renovation and Expansion Project and the renovation and Expansion Project is<00:02:32.640
• </c><00:20:45.080><c> have</c> both of these of these projects have both of these of these projects have
• </c><00:47:16.240><c> school</c> Project this project will improve school Project this project will improve
• </c> saved from construction on a projects saved from construction on a projects that<00:58:51.920><c

Committee: Senate Taxes