Transcript Highlights:

• tools to support future projects.
• Projects and renewable fuel projects are coming online, and we're going to be gathering lessons learned
• with recommended projects.
• A PIS does not approve or deny a project, nor does it evaluate a specific project or analyze a specific
• project.

Bills: HB2111 , HB2495

Committee: Senate Transportation

Keywords: Interstate 5 bridge, toll facility, bond retirement, transportation, state funding, vehicles, streetcar operation, public safety, urban regulation

Transcript Highlights:

• It's really on a project-by-project basis.
• I'm sure there's other projects that are retrofit type projects.
• Cloud Green Hydrogen Project.
• This project reminds me a lot of green fertilizer projects.
• But they are projecting it.

Committee: House Energy Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• project.
• </c> something projects? something projects? &gt;&gt; 474<00:49:45.120><c> projects.
• From the start of a project to execution. >> But not every project.
• </c> about 12 million projected. about 12 million projected.
• projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• One of them was the fusion project.
• This is a very large project.
• Alignment disposition process for qualifying projects within the area of the Concord Reuse Project Area
• This project will generate jobs.
• the length of the project, so we will not only be improving the... ...through the length of the project

Committee: Senate Environmental Quality

Transcript Highlights:

• or harm the project.
• I talked about the beginning of this project.
• , which is why I go back to my original question: we made the wrong projections and projected a deficit
• , which is why I go back to my original question: we made the wrong projections and projected a deficit
• I go back to my original question: we made the wrong projections and projected a deficit, and now we're

Transcript Highlights:

• Dwelling unit projects.
• a large residential project comes in remember we're really and we have a project, a large residential
• project comes in.
• And whoever had a project that needed it would submit their project.
• Another project for folks to know about is a project up in Butte County.

Committee: Senate Natural Resources and Water

Transcript Highlights:

• Any other project there.
• They're basically ATV projects, active transportation projects, as well as wildlife accommodation projects
• This bill does not force the merger of a wildlife crossing project with an existing project.
• So it's possible if the CTC looks at, we have a wildlife project here, we have this highway project,
• It's not going to delay projects.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee heard a long agenda of transportation-related bills, with several district-specific measures and statewide policy proposals. Early in the hearing, SB 1408 by Senator Arreguín would authorize Contra Costa County to place a new countywide transportation sales tax measure on the ballot to continue funding highways, local roads, transit, biking and walking infrastructure, and paratransit. Supporters said it would preserve funding continuity for major projects; CalTax opposed it over affordability and sales tax burden concerns. Senators discussed that the bill would only place the measure before voters, not enact the tax itself, and a motion was made, but no vote could be taken because the committee lacked a quorum. The committee also heard SB 990, a rural signage bill for Ridgecrest along Highway 395, which would allow Caltrans business-logo signs to direct travelers to lodging, food, fuel, medical services, and other amenities. The author and local witnesses framed it as a safety and economic development measure for an isolated community; there was no opposition. SB 1167, authored by Senator Blakespear, would tighten consumer protections in the e-bike market by distinguishing legal e-bikes from higher-powered e-motos, requiring clearer labeling and disclosures, and improving incident reporting. It drew broad support from bicycle, medical, local government, auto club, and safety groups, with no opposition. SB 1034 by Senator McNerney would make it easier for disabled veterans rated permanently and totally disabled by the VA to obtain disabled parking placards, aligning state procedures with federal disability determinations; veterans groups strongly supported it and no opposition was heard. The committee then heard SB 1279, which would add Long Beach’s Pacific Coast Highway corridor to the city’s existing speed safety camera pilot. Supporters said PCH accounts for a disproportionate share of fatalities and crashes, especially involving pedestrians, while opponents from the highway patrol and business groups said the issue should be handled under existing or upcoming rules. The California Highway Patrol Association later moved to neutral after discussions about amendments. Finally, the chair presented SB 1177, to require the High-Speed Rail Project Update report to continue including additional information such as revenue options and comparative project history, and SB 1246, a bill to impose stronger remote-operations, response-time, training, reporting, and manual override requirements on autonomous vehicle operators. SB 1177 drew support from the U.S. High-Speed Rail Association and opposition from the City of Burbank, while SB 1246 drew strong support from firefighters, labor, and many drivers and cyclists, but opposition from the AV industry, Chamber of Commerce groups, and a retired CHP official who argued the bill was too prescriptive and conflicted with new DMV rules. Members debated safety, data reporting, first responder access, and whether the bill should wait for rulemaking; the hearing ended with motions and discussion, but the transcript does not show final votes being taken on these measures.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> projects and timelines. projects and timelines.
• . projects. projects.
• . projects. projects.
• </c> expansion projects are. expansion projects are.
• </c> into projects up front. into projects up front.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, there are 15 projects selected in each project category.
• :21.680><c> have</c> project recommendations, we have project recommendations, we have alphabetical<00
• </c> your selections in these three project your selections in these three project categories.<00:02:
• Um there are 15 projects categories.
• Is it projects they're going to do?

Summary: The meeting opened with a quorum, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by approval of the prior meeting minutes. The board then reviewed the 2026–2032 statewide capital improvement plan, including project recommendations across maintenance, renovation, IT, and new construction categories. Staff explained that 15 projects were selected in each category and described how the board’s tiebreaker process was used to finalize the recommendations. Members asked about the asset preservation pool, specifically whether institutions receive a blanket appropriation or must identify projects. Staff explained that the Council on Postsecondary Education serves as the gatekeeper after appropriation, reviewing institution-submitted uses to ensure they meet criteria for maintaining and improving existing facilities rather than new construction. Staff also outlined revisions to the draft plan, including updated summary data, revised wording for clarity, an updated maintenance pool policy recommendation based on Pew research, and a change to cross-reference major state-funded construction project status information rather than listing it directly. During discussion, one member praised the work on the plan and commented on the budget reserve trust fund, noting disagreement with Pew’s suggestion that the process should be in statute because Kentucky has long used the budget bill to govern deposits and uses. The board then moved to final action and unanimously adopted the draft 2026–2032 statewide capital improvement plan, with authority for staff to make final technical and editorial revisions and insert the comprehensive project list before publication. The chair thanked members for their work, noting it was the final meeting of the year, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> projects especially the initial projects projects especially the initial projects when<01:27:14.400
• You have 208-plus projects, 28 projects, and I don't know.
• You have 208-plus projects, 28 projects, and I don't know.
• You have 208-plus projects, 28 projects, and I don't know.
• You have 208-plus projects, 28 projects, and I don't know.

Summary: The joint Ways and Means and Hawaiian Affairs committee heard a budget presentation from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands on its biennium requests for critical projects, repairs and maintenance, and operations. DHHL described its role in administering the Hawaiian Home Lands Trust, noted the large beneficiary wait list, and said prior funding, including Act 279, has helped the department accelerate land development and reduce vacancies. Officials said they have about 47,219 applications involving 29,548 Native Hawaiians, roughly 28 projects underway, and that about $471 million of a $600 million appropriation has been encumbered, with the remaining lapse-fix funds expected to be resolved before the June 30, 2026 deadline. DHHL emphasized that its current request would support additional lot development and could help produce roughly 6,000 units from the existing project pipeline, with another phase of requests potentially adding about 2,000 more units. The department said it is prioritizing shovel-ready projects, accelerating lease awards and orientations, and using a mix of approaches including paper leases, rental-with-option-to-purchase, owner-builder, and loan programs. Officials also discussed a shift toward denser urban development, citing projects in West Oahu and Honolulu, and said the department is working to reduce its vacancy rate and move beneficiaries onto the land more quickly. Members questioned why Oahu, despite having the largest wait list, was receiving comparatively lower amounts, and DHHL responded that land availability and cost drive those decisions, with Oahu having limited developable land and very high acquisition costs. The department pointed to land acquisition on Kauai and other islands, and to urban high-rise projects that can yield far more units on small parcels. Members also raised long-term maintenance and wildfire risk, asking whether current acquisition and development choices account for future infrastructure costs; DHHL said maintenance is a growing concern, especially on large unused or isolated lands, and that it is pursuing Firewise planning, federal funds, and partnerships to reduce risk. The discussion also touched on mixed-use and community-led development, with DHHL explaining that it leases land to nonprofit homestead associations under general leases with milestones, business-plan requirements, and land-use restrictions to support local services and community goals.

Transcript Highlights:

• We do a project overview for active projects.
• We do do a project overview for active projects.
• Second is those project overviews with a link to individual projects.
• Generally, project management or project oversight is the fee.
• I would just add that there is a project that's in place, the tech debt project.

Committee: Joint Information Technology Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• Prioritize both government and nonprofit projects over for-profit projects.
• </c> projects.
• </c> the sub account to the HCDA99 project. the sub account to the HCDA99 project.
• ,</c><01:32:30.480><c> projects</c><01:32:31.040><c> on</c> proposed state projects, projects on proposed
• project, it'll continue. ...like the rail project, it'll continue through the duration of the project

Summary: The committees heard several housing-related bills and resolutions. HB 1298 HD3 would create a government employee housing revolving fund and a government employee 99-year leasehold rent-to-own program; testimony was generally supportive from HHFDC, labor groups, and the Maui Chamber, with the Tax Foundation and Budget and Finance raising concerns about the revolving fund. The committees recommended passage with non-substantive amendments for clarity and consistency, and the motion was adopted. HB 741 H2, which would exempt certain affordable housing projects financed by a certified nonprofit CDFI from prevailing wage requirements, drew support from housing advocates and opposition from several construction unions; the chairs said they were concerned about the labor objections and deferred the measure, with the labor committee agreeing to defer it as well. The housing committee then took up HB 417 HD1, which creates a housing efficiency and innovation subaccount in the rental housing revolving fund and allows HHFDC to transfer funds between the subaccount and the main fund without legislative approval. Testimony was largely supportive. The chair described a series of amendments, including changing the funding-efficiency standard, adding perpetual affordability language, allowing any land tenure type, broadening eligible financing tools, adding priority criteria for mixed-income projects and government-employee projects, and inserting blank appropriations tied to a requested $75 million per year and a $75 million subaccount appropriation for the HCDA 99-year leasehold project. The committee recommended passage with amendments, and the recommendation was adopted. HB 422 HD1, which would repeal school impact fees and move remaining balances to the school facilities special fund, drew broad support from housing and taxpayer groups and opposition from the Department of Education and some individuals. The School Facilities Authority and DOE argued the current system had not produced enough usable land or school sites and suggested narrowing the exemption to government housing projects’ construction costs instead of repealing the fee entirely. Members pressed DOE and SFA on how much land had actually been obtained and whether the fee had been effective; the discussion highlighted concerns about unused balances, school overcrowding, and the role of the Land Use Commission and county zoning in securing school sites. The committee did not take final action on the bill in the portion shown. The committee also heard STR 60/SR 45, urging HHFDC to develop a plan to meet housing demand, and STR 77/SR 60, addressing continued eligibility for housing credits for certain projects after repeal of Act 31; both sets of resolutions had HHFDC support, with DHHL supporting STR 77/SR 60 and Johnny May Perry opposing both.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this is just some of the exploration projects or projects that Centera has going on right now.
• Perpetua's Stibnite Gold Project is located in the project...
• And so yes, I would say I am a gold project financially, and strategically, I'm also an antimony project
• So our Delamar project is a heap leach only project.
• So our Delamar project is a heap leech only project.

Committee: Senate Resources and Environment

Transcript Highlights:

• fund those projects.
• For example, if the project is, ...for projects that meet specified criteria.
• projects, produced water treatment projects, and aquifer storage and recovery projects, or ASR.
• the Pine Bliss project.
• And if we stop pumping—not our project, but any project or any pump— ...if we stop pumping, not our project

Committee: House Natural Resources

Summary: The committee held a hearing on high-capacity groundwater wells proposed in Anderson, Henderson, and Houston counties, with members framing the issue as one of local water supply, fairness, and the need to modernize groundwater law while protecting private property rights. Opening remarks focused on the scale of the proposed Redtown Ranch and Pine Bliss projects, the potential export of tens of thousands of acre-feet of groundwater annually, and concerns that the applications lacked sufficient technical detail and could harm nearby landowners, cities, agriculture, and manufacturing. Members also noted the broader context of the recent flooding tragedy in central Texas and the Legislature’s intent to address water-related loss of life in the upcoming special session. Witnesses from the Texas Alliance of Groundwater Districts and the Texas Water Development Board explained the current groundwater management framework. They described groundwater conservation districts as the state’s preferred management method, the role of groundwater management areas and desired future conditions, and how the Water Development Board uses those conditions to calculate modeled available groundwater. They emphasized that districts rely on local data, monitoring wells, and planning processes, but that information is often more limited in areas without a district, where the rule of capture applies. Members pressed witnesses on recharge rates, export permits, subsidence, the effect of pumping on nearby wells, the age and real-time availability of model data, and whether the proposed project would exceed modeled available groundwater in some counties. TCEQ explained its limited oversight role over groundwater conservation districts, including inquiries, compliance actions, and, in extreme cases, dissolution authority. Water Development Board staff also outlined funding programs, saying the New Water Supply for Texas Fund is limited to projects such as brackish desalination, reuse, ASR, and other new-supply projects, and does not fund fresh groundwater exports alone. They said the project at issue had not applied for board funding. A water lawyer then testified on the rule of capture, ownership in place, and district regulation, arguing that districts must use permitting and other tools to manage production within modeled available groundwater and that the Legislature could consider additional authority over groundwater exports under current law.

Transcript Highlights:

• These are projects that have been in the queue for many years.
• Um, but we would propose up to $13 million that they could apply to either project.
• Put together a project that is, is reasonable. Um, I do have one question.
• For both projects, a total of up to 13 million can be, uh, advanced by PSFA.
• Um, to, uh, uh, move these projects forward.

Committee: House Public School Capital Outlay Oversight Task Force

Transcript Highlights:

• So, the first project is a continuation of the upper Greyel fish passage project.
• . project. project.
• This one is a large project. The third project is the Absaroka Front Cheatgrass.
• This one is a large project. The third project is the Absaroka Front Cheatgrass.
• Chairman, the final project is the Western Wyoming cheatgrass project.

Committee: Joint Select Natural Resource Funding Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• And what do those projections look like? What are those projections like for those companies?
• What percentage of the project is materials, and then what percentage of the project is actually already
• The project extent between the two models is the same. The project begins...
• So I'd like to see any kind of a plan or project projection on this, or pro forma, to see how the O&M
• Project is transparent.

Committee: Joint Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee

Summary: The Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee met for a work session and public hearing on the Interstate 5 bridge replacement program. Program staff outlined major milestones, including the recent biological opinion, the Coast Guard’s opening of a public comment period on the Navigation Impact Report, expected decisions in early 2026 on navigational clearance and the final supplemental environmental impact statement, and a possible amended record of decision in 2026. They also discussed the Bridge Investment Program grant amendment deadline, the need for an initial finance plan, and ongoing community outreach and contractor engagement. Greg Johnson announced he was stepping down as program administrator, and Carly Francis introduced herself as interim administrator. A large portion of the meeting focused on design and cost questions. Staff said the program is studying fixed and movable spans, single- and double-deck configurations, and one versus two auxiliary lanes, with final recommendations to be made through the federal environmental process. They said the Coast Guard’s decision is central to what bridge configuration is permittable and to the timing of the updated cost estimate, which has not yet been released. Members pressed for more detail on cost drivers, potential impacts to businesses upriver, and whether the states would need to seek additional funding. Staff said they had reached agreements with four impacted river users, but the underlying evaluation materials are protected and not publicly releasable. The committee also reviewed transit-related questions. Staff explained that light rail remains part of the modified locally preferred alternative and that ridership and operations estimates are being updated using federal modeling methods. They said projected opening-day transit operations and maintenance costs have dropped from an earlier estimate of $21.8 million to about $10.3 million annually because the current model assumes lower frequency, with Oregon and Washington shares split by geography and fare recovery. Members raised concerns about TriMet’s financial stability and the need for a funding plan by fall 2027, ahead of a planned federal transit funding application in fall 2028. During public testimony, several speakers criticized the delay in releasing a new cost estimate and argued the project scope should be reduced if costs continue to rise. Testifiers from City Observatory and the Just Crossing Alliance said the project appears to be avoiding bad news, urged the committee to consider scope reductions, and questioned whether the active transportation and freeway components align with the project’s core purpose. The meeting ended with thanks to Johnson for his service and a transition to public hearing testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• of those projects.
• There are two projections: one is the December 2024 projection, and then the most recent information
• Funding first, projects after, or projects first, funding after, are two different timelines for the
• We proposed that program as a project line under Pedbike and a project line under Safe Routes and you
• for projects.

Summary: The Senate Transportation Committee met on October 16, 2025, for a budget and revenue overview, a traffic safety presentation, and a discussion of potential transit and active transportation grant programs. Committee staff reviewed the adopted 2025-27 transportation budget, noting $15.5 billion in expenditures, the large share for WSDOT, and the mix of revenue sources including fuel tax, vehicle-related fees, federal funds, Climate Commitment Act revenue, and new 2025 revenues from SB 5801 and SB 5802. Staff said the 2025 session produced a balanced four-year plan, preserved major project schedules, maintained highway preservation funding, and added money for culverts, local preservation, and other priorities. They also described a September forecast showing lower motor fuel consumption than previously expected, but still enough revenue growth to keep the transportation plan balanced. For the 2026 supplemental, staff said agency requests were relatively modest overall, with most capital requests reflecting reappropriations and timing shifts rather than new projects, while WSDOT’s addendum identified much larger future needs for maintenance, preservation, paving, culverts, and safety work. Senators asked for more detail on how revenues are distributed by fund type and geography, how much of the maintenance and preservation request is actual maintenance versus equipment, whether paving needs could be supported through bonding, and how electric vehicle sales trends might affect forecasts. The committee then heard a remote presentation from Dr. Jessica Chikino of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety on traffic safety trends and countermeasures. She said U.S. traffic fatalities have risen sharply over the past decade, with especially large increases for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists, and argued that the U.S. lags other high-income countries in roadway safety. Her presentation highlighted IIHS’s “30 by 30” goal to reduce fatalities 30% by 2030 through safer speeds, stronger impaired-driving countermeasures, better pedestrian protection, and safer commercial vehicles. She discussed research linking higher speed limits to higher fatality risk, the benefits of lower urban speed limits, speed safety cameras, traffic calming, lighting, pedestrian beacons, and safer intersection design. She also described ongoing work with Bellevue on smart signal technology and pedestrian safety pilots. Committee members thanked her for the presentation and said they would share the materials with others. In the final work session, the committee revisited transit and active transportation grant concepts that had been included in the Senate budget proposal but did not advance in 2025. Barb Chamberlain of WSDOT’s Active Transportation Division explained how grant programs need runway, staff capacity, applicant readiness, and clear criteria, and compared program design to getting a plane off the ground. She discussed the proposed Senior Transportation Emphasis Program and regional trails/cycle highways concepts, noting that some projects could be structured as funding-first programs while others would work better as project-line or project-first models. She said regional trail projects are already eligible under existing programs but often score lower because current criteria emphasize safety and population served. Justin Leighton of the Washington State Transit Association then reviewed transit grant programs and argued that transit safety and security needs remain underfunded, including operator barriers, lighting, shelters, behavioral health coordination, and non-uniformed security staff. He said many transit capital programs are oversubscribed, that operator barrier retrofits alone could cost $20 million to $30 million, and that agencies face uncertainty about how recent sales tax changes apply to security-related contracts. No votes were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• THE CENTRAL EVERGLADES PLANNING PROJECT THIS IS ONE ASPECT.
• COMPONENTS AND BENEFITS OF WHAT WE WILL SEE OF THESE PROJECTS COME ONLINE.
• AFTER THE FLOODING EVENTS IN THE 20s AND 40s IS IT WAS A FEDERAL PROJECT.
• AND WE HAD A LOT OF EVERGLADES CLEANUP PROJECTS.
• IT SOMETHING MORE PRIVATE ENTITY CAME TO US AND OFFERED US A PROJECT AND IF IT IS A PROJECT THAT WE CAN

Transcript Highlights:

• of this resiliency project.
• of the resiliency project.
• The majority of these projects are infrastructure and hardening projects, which will ultimately make
• We imposed financial consequences, and then those projects that were remaining, we reassigned those projects
• Elevate Florida emphasizes structure elevation projects over any other type of project for several reasons

Summary: The Committee on Community Affairs met with a quorum present and heard several housing and disaster-recovery items. The committee heard SB 48 by Senator Gates, which would require local governments to allow voluntary accessory dwelling units, preserve homestead treatment for the owner-occupied portion of the property, limit undue parking restrictions, require 30-day minimum rentals, extend certain density bonuses for military families, and allow reusable tenant screening reports. The bill drew strong support from the Florida Association of Mortgage Professionals and several others, and it was reported favorably. The committee also heard SB 34 by Senator Sharif, creating a historic cemeteries program to help preserve historic African-American cemeteries and allow sale of excess vacant land if proceeds are used for long-term maintenance; it was also reported favorably. The committee then considered and recommended confirmation of Fox Henderson to the Board of Directors of the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Members also received a presentation from the Department of Commerce on the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery program and Rebuild Florida. Deputy Secretary Justin Domer described the state’s administration of HUD disaster recovery funds, including more than $4.3 billion received since 2017, housing repair and replacement programs that have completed 5,271 homes, and infrastructure and mitigation projects such as sewer conversion in Alford, the new Calhoun-Liberty Hospital, and the Florida Keys desalination plant. Members asked about average project costs, contractor oversight, corrective actions for deficient work, and audit procedures; Domer said the department uses inspections, vendor oversight, and financial penalties, and noted stricter contract consequences in newer programs. The Division of Emergency Management also presented on Elevate Florida, a federal mitigation program that allows homeowners to apply directly for elevation, reconstruction, acquisition/demolition, or wind-mitigation projects, with a 75/25 federal-homeowner cost share and no state funds. Director Kevin Guthrie said the program is designed to reduce repetitive flood losses and keep homeowners in place, and that it has received more than 12,000 applications, with about 1,500 prioritized, 500 on a wait list, and 305 submitted to FEMA for final approval. Members asked about the 25% match for seniors, the wait list, contractor procurement, and how projects are classified; Guthrie said the program uses insurance proceeds where available, has competitively procured 27 contractors, and may shift projects from elevation to reconstruction depending on damage and flood rules. The committee adjourned after the presentations and discussion.