Transcript Highlights:

• Project oversight and delivery.
• A couple highlights on federal aid projects: the Fun Farm Bridge at the top right picture is a bridge
• All in all, we've dedicated $36 million to these projects, 134 projects across the state.
• some of the smaller projects that a local agency may not prioritize due to the limitations of federal
• of the smaller projects that a local agency may not prioritize due to the limitations of federal aid

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• So when we looked at federal funding requirements, and you often hear the term federalized projects,
• and that simply denotes a project that receives federal funds and therefore must adhere to federal requirements
• So the exchange happens after projects are selected and after federal funds are allocated to those projects
• Projects that have federal funding and those that impact bodies of water.
• So smaller projects, certainly smaller federal amounts.

Committee: Joint Joint Transportation Committee

Summary: The meeting began with introductions from members of the Joint Transportation Committee and a presentation from the Association of Washington Cities and the public works directors of Richland, Kennewick, Pasco, and West Richland. The cities described the Quad Cities region as one of the fastest-growing in the state and outlined shared transportation priorities that align with the committee’s focus on safety, multimodal access, climate resilience, and economic development. They emphasized Vision Zero efforts, complete streets, ADA accessibility, regional trail and bike/pedestrian planning, and coordinated long-range transportation and land-use planning to manage growth. The city officials also discussed major funding and delivery challenges, including rising construction costs, project phasing, pavement preservation, right-of-way acquisition, and delays caused by state and federal permitting and review processes. They highlighted regional cooperation through the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Good Roads, and local funding tools such as impact fees, transportation benefit districts, REET, tax increment financing, and state and federal grants. Specific projects discussed included Richland’s SR 240/Aaron Drive complete streets project and downtown connectivity work, Kennewick’s Columbia Center Boulevard improvements and rail study, Pasco’s Court/Road 68, Sylvester Street corridor, I-182 bridge/interchange work, and a new north-south bridge study, and West Richland’s SR 224 Red Mountain corridor project, which officials said was awarded under budget and is scheduled to begin construction. Committee members asked questions about sidewalk connections to schools, state-agency right-of-way timelines, apprenticeship utilization, contractor selection, and whether complete streets requirements add burdens to pavement preservation projects. The city officials said new development is generally meeting sidewalk standards, but older infill areas remain a gap; that state right-of-way transactions can take much longer than expected; that apprenticeship requirements are common but harder for smaller contractors and local labor markets; and that low-bid contracting leaves little room to screen for performance history. They also said complete streets requirements are usually manageable on major projects but can be difficult to absorb in smaller preservation work. The committee then shifted to a JTC-funded study on transit-oriented development, presented by Urban Institute researcher Yona Freemark. The study examined TOD conditions in 33 cities in Snohomish, King, Pierce, Clark, and Spokane counties near rail and bus rapid transit stations. Freemark said Washington’s housing affordability crisis is severe, especially near transit, and found that high-cost cities have seen more development near stations but also signs of gentrification and loss of affordable housing, while lower-cost cities have had less development and worsening affordability relative to income. He identified barriers including high debt costs, land costs, infrastructure costs, zoning and parking rules, and limited subsidies for affordable housing. He recommended more neighborhood infrastructure funding near stations, stronger affordable housing investment, and better use of public land, noting that HB 1491 and related legislation are already changing some local requirements.

Transcript Highlights:

• executed by granting state funding for projects and allowing the project...
• DCIP tends to grant around $100 million in federal funding each year, with projects being awarded from
• Based on the project.
• The whole idea was that if we had projects, if our state did fund projects, then that generated federal
• The project will build the state's first joint Department of Defense, federal, and municipal firefighting

Summary: The Joint Committee on Veterans and Military Affairs met to hear updates from Joint Base Lewis-McChord, the Washington Military Department, the Washington Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Commerce on federal and state impacts affecting veterans, military families, and military installations. JBLM’s garrison commander said the base remains focused on housing, child care, and spouse employment, but is facing workforce reductions tied to federal personnel actions, especially in air traffic control, 911 dispatch, and firefighting. He also said JBLM is preparing for increased mutual-aid needs during fire season, and that the Army Transformation Initiative could change unit composition at JBLM over time without a major overall population shift. He confirmed that the Lewis Army Museum is on a closure list, but said the building will remain in use for training and that the base is exploring partnerships to keep museum functions operating, possibly with volunteers or local partners. The Washington Military Department reported about 400 Guard members deployed on federal missions and described ongoing state missions in cybersecurity and firefighting. The department said the Army National Guard’s 81st Stryker Brigade will transition to a mobile combat team, with associated changes in equipment, manning, and end strength. It also warned that continuing resolutions are delaying funding, limiting new military construction starts, and increasing costs. The Washington Department of Veterans Affairs outlined a $3.2 million reduction from the governor’s budget and related cuts affecting internships, vacant positions, outreach travel, claims support contracts, counseling and wellness, veterans’ innovation assistance, and the military transition and readiness council staff position. WDVA said it is ending or scaling back several programs, including in-house nursing assistant training, the veteran farm at Ordean, Vet Corps due to AmeriCorps funding changes, and the tobacco cessation program, while noting that the legislature funded about $23.7 million in capital projects for veteran homes, cemeteries, and transitional housing. The Department of Commerce presented on the Defense Community Compatibility Account, which funds projects that reduce conflicts between military installations and nearby communities. The program currently has 10 projects across five legislative districts, including school and child care improvements, water wells, land acquisition, and a joint firefighting training center in Everett. The presenter said the main challenge is that DCCA projects often need non-state funding secured before they can compete, which can make it hard to leverage federal Defense Community Infrastructure Program dollars; he recommended more flexible state timing to help projects qualify for federal funding. In closing discussion, members raised possible future agenda items including child care near bases, veteran homelessness, suicide prevention, Navy Day, military family housing, and a possible Department of Licensing issue involving guard and reserve designations on driver’s licenses. No formal votes were taken, and the meeting adjourned after members were invited to suggest topics for the October and December committee meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• The projection for federal government employment has changed considerably in recent weeks, but is not
• Moreover, uncertainty in federal policies, coupled with the difficulty of projecting long-range economic
• federal government<00:30:36.880><c> is</c><00:30:37.039><c> projected</c><00:30:37.440><c> to</c><00
• :30:37.640><c> provide</c><00:30:38.039><c> 26</c> The federal government is projected to provide $26
• The federal government is projected to provide $26 billion to Medical Assistance in the 2026-27 biennium

Summary: Minnesota Management and Budget presented the February 2025 budget and economic forecast, with Commissioner Aon Campbell, State Economist Anthony Becker, and Budget Director Anam Mingi outlining updated revenue, spending, and long-term balance projections. The state’s FY 2026-27 general fund outlook remains positive but weaker than in November, with an ending balance of $456 million, down $160 million from the prior forecast. Looking ahead, the planning years FY 2028-29 show a projected deficit of just under $6 billion, driven largely by spending growth outpacing revenues. Officials emphasized that discretionary inflation is a major factor in the forecast, but also noted that those amounts are not automatically appropriated and would require legislative action. Becker said the national outlook has changed since November, with higher expected inflation, higher interest rates for longer, and slower growth in later years. He highlighted uncertainty around tariffs, trade policy, immigration policy, federal spending, and possible changes to tax and debt-ceiling policy, all of which could affect Minnesota’s economy and revenues. Minnesota’s labor market remains tight, with low unemployment and rising wages, and the revenue forecast was revised upward overall for FY 2026-27, including higher income and sales tax receipts, though corporate tax revenue was slightly lower than previously projected. Mingi said projected general fund spending is up $79 million in FY 2026-27 and $960 million in FY 2028-29 compared with November. The largest increases are in education and health and human services, especially due to inflation, higher pupil counts, special education costs, long-term care, and higher Medical Assistance spending. She noted that higher utilization of weight-loss drugs also raises Medicaid costs, and that a smaller assumed bonding bill helps offset some debt service costs. The commissioner and staff repeatedly warned that federal policy changes, especially possible Medicaid reductions, pose a major risk; they said Minnesota could face billions in lost federal funding, including a potential $2.4 billion hit if the enhanced Medicaid match for adults without children were eliminated. No votes or legislative actions were taken in the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• the funding for federal VA.
• projects being executed by granting state funding for projects and allowing the projects to apply for
• DCIP tends to grant around $100 million in federal funding each year, with projects being awarded from
• The whole idea was that if we had projects and our state did fund projects, then that generated federal
• The project will build the state’s first joint Department of Defense, federal, and municipal firefighting

Summary: The Joint Committee on Veterans and Military Affairs met with opening introductions from members, many of whom noted military service or ties to Joint Base Lewis-McChord and other installations. The committee then heard from JBLM Garrison Commander Col. Ken Park, who said the base’s top priorities remain housing, child care, and spouse employment, while also warning about federal personnel reductions that eliminated about 283 civilian authorizations at JBLM. He said the biggest operational impacts are on air traffic control, 911 dispatch, and firefighting, which may require more mutual aid with local agencies during fire season. He also discussed the Army Transformation Initiative, saying JBLM will likely see some units leave and others arrive, with no expected major net growth or loss. In response to questions, he confirmed the Lewis Army Museum is slated for closure no earlier than 2027, but said the building will remain in use for training and that the base is exploring partnerships and possible extended public access hours in the meantime. Jim Baumgart of the Washington Military Department reported that about 400 Washington National Guard members are deployed on federal missions, and that the Guard continues state missions in cybersecurity and wildfire response. He said the 81st Stryker Brigade will transition to a Mobile Combat Team as part of Army transformation, with possible changes to end strength and equipment. He also warned that continuing resolutions are delaying military construction and may increase costs, and said federal changes to cooperative agreements could raise the state share. Members asked about capital projects and tribal coordination, and Baumgart said two capital projects are in the supplemental budget and that the department recently hosted a convening of tribal police chiefs at Building 81. WDVA Director David Puente described significant state budget reductions, including a $3.2 million cut package, a 50% reduction in VCC internships, vacant position eliminations, reduced travel, and cuts to counseling, wellness, and veterans innovation funding. He said the agency is ending its in-house nursing assistant academy, the veteran farm at Orting, Vet Corps positions tied to AmeriCorps funding, and the tobacco cessation program unless alternative funding is found. He also noted that the legislature funded all of WDVA’s capital requests, including money for the Spokane veterans home replacement, a second state veterans cemetery, and HVAC work at Port Orchard. Members raised concerns about suicide prevention and federal VA staffing cuts, and Puente said WDVA will continue tracking data and working with partners on those gaps. Mike Cahill of the Department of Commerce reviewed the Defense Community Compatibility Account, explaining that it funds projects that reduce incompatibility between military installations and nearby communities and can help leverage federal DCIP dollars. He said the program has 10 funded projects across five districts, with nearly $50 million in state funding supporting more than $200 million in total project costs, and highlighted projects including Oak Harbor school and child care improvements and the Everett Joint Firefighting Training Center. He also said the state’s “last dollar in” approach can make it harder for projects to secure federal matching funds, and he will continue outreach and technical assistance. In closing discussion, members raised possible future topics for the committee, including Navy Day, a possible driver’s license designation issue for Guard and Reserve members, child care near bases, veteran homelessness, suicide prevention, and support for service members facing legal or educational concerns related to federal policy changes. The meeting adjourned after members were asked to send additional agenda ideas for the October and December meetings.

Transcript Highlights:

• <c> to</c><00:10:10.720><c> federal</c><00:10:11.120><c> changes</c><00:10:11.600><c> in</c> projects
• are due to federal changes in projects are due to federal changes in the<00:10:12.080><c> in</c><00:
• This slide for 2026–2028 includes 13 projects totaling $65 million. $55 million is federally funded,
• It was budgeted for the Somerset Armory, which was a $23 million project: $19 million federal, uh, $4
• You know, you’ve got a federally funded project for colarium wall there at Grayson. Yes.

Summary: The Capital Planning Advisory Board met with a quorum, approved the May 21 minutes, and welcomed a new executive branch member, Secretary Keith Jackson of the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet. The board also received two informational items: agency responses to prior questions and amendments made to capital plans after the last meeting. It then heard the Commonwealth Office of Technology’s report on executive branch IT capital project scoring, which reviewed 16 IT requests totaling about $330.5 million. COOT said projects were ranked through an independent panel using standardized criteria focused on feasibility, statewide alignment, readiness, impact, and risk; the CIO recommended moving an enterprise application and artificial intelligence inventory system from rank 11 to rank 4 because of its enterprise-wide impact and connection to Senate Bill 4. The Department of Military Affairs presented its capital plan, describing 43 million in projects for the current period and 13 projects totaling $65 million for 2026–2028, with most funding coming from federal sources and restricted agency funds and no general fund request in the latter period. Its projects included maintenance pool adjustments, a statewide Army master plan, the Somerset readiness center, Shelbyville and Ashland armories, a future home for the Kentucky Army National Guard band, and other facility upgrades. Members asked about the Somerset project’s cost growth and federal delay; the department said the project remains in conceptual design, is awaiting federal MILCON action, and would require a state match of about $9.8 million against $29.6 million federal funding if it is approved. Members also asked about staffing levels, and the department said state employee and Title 32 numbers have been relatively steady, while technician positions have declined. The Department of Veterans Affairs outlined seven projects for 2026–2028, led by a Radcliff Veterans Center HVAC replacement that needs an estimated additional $16 million to finish phase two after phase one was already funded. Other requests included a maintenance pool increase, renovations and exterior upgrades at Eastern and Western Kentucky veterans facilities, a cooling tower replacement at Thompson Hood, and parking lot and lighting improvements. The department said some projects were already in the six-year plan and that the Radcliff phase two could be bid in June 2026 if funded. Members confirmed that a columbarium wall project at Grayson is federally funded. The Kentucky Infrastructure Authority presented its six-year capital plan, citing more than $3 billion in loan commitments since 1988 and over $5 billion in supported infrastructure projects. KIA requested $298.439 million in the first biennium, including $27.742 million in state match for federal clean water and drinking water revolving funds, $25 million for its state Infrastructure Revolving Fund, $185.697 million in federal capitalization grants, and $30 million in leverage bond authorization for each year of the two federally assisted loan programs. Members asked about drinking-water quality, and KIA said that function is handled by the Energy and Environment Cabinet’s Division of Water, not KIA. KIA also said its loan rates currently range from 0.5% to 2.25%, averaging just under 1%, and that its revolving loan programs have had no defaults. The Tourism, Arts, and Heritage Cabinet began its presentation at the end of the transcript, with staff identifying themselves, but no project details or board action from that presentation were included in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• the federal grant.
• the federal grant.
• </c> project and so they still have a federal project and so they still have a federal interest<00:36
• Representative Skraba said, "So, someone could have the federal government give money to a project that
• project, and it made it through the system and it asking for a match, and the federal government said

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• The second part of the executive order is about federal permitting for offshore wind projects.
• of the federal government's leasing and permitting practices for wind projects.
• Without all of the federal permits, projects planned for New England waters cannot begin construction
• Even if projects do have all of their federal permits, which some do, these federal actions send an immensely
• These federal actions are also impacting projects in other areas on the Atlantic coast, which in turn

Committee: Senate Senate Committee on Climate Change and Global Warming

Summary: The committee held a hearing on the impact of the Trump administration’s federal climate policy changes on Massachusetts, with a focus on threatened grants, regulatory rollbacks, and state options to continue climate work. Chair Creem and other senators emphasized that Massachusetts still has a 2050 net-zero mandate and needs contingency plans for clean energy, transportation electrification, offshore wind, resilience, and financing if federal support is reduced or withdrawn. Executive branch witnesses said Massachusetts has already experienced disruptions to more than $1 billion in climate-related federal funds, though many suspended grants were restored after litigation by the Attorney General’s office. EEA reported continued uncertainty around a $389 million Grid Innovation Program award and a FEMA dam-safety reimbursement, while MassDOT said its NEVI fast-charging program remains on track with about $50 million obligated, but a $14.4 million competitive charging grant is on hold and future unobligated NEVI funds remain uncertain. Senators also discussed EV rebates, charging infrastructure, the role of the Community Climate Bank, and whether the state can expand independent financing and support for municipalities, higher education, and nonprofits. The Attorney General’s office described successful multi-state litigation that won a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against the federal funding freeze, restoring access to many EPA, DOE, USDA, and Interior funds, while noting continued enforcement actions over FEMA manual reviews and other barriers. The office said it is also preparing to defend the endangerment finding, California vehicle-emissions waivers, offshore wind permits, and other federal climate protections. Outside advocates warned that federal tax-credit rollbacks, tariffs, and possible repeal of IRA and infrastructure funding could slow EV adoption and raise costs, while offshore wind testimony said federal permitting pauses and legal challenges are delaying projects and could leave Massachusetts far short of its 2030 offshore wind goals. Nonprofit witnesses also described canceled or delayed grants for wetland restoration and urban heat mitigation, and urged the Legislature to increase state funding, including for the environmental bond bill and municipal vulnerability preparedness work.

Transcript Highlights:

• that also rely on federal funding, that we could get those projects from our members so that we can
• that also rely on members have projects that also rely on federal<00:19:32.000><c> funding</c><00:19
• funding uh that we could get federal funding uh that we could get those<00:19:34.200><c> projects</c
• So we leverage federal funds—project XYZ—but now we still have to maintain it and operate it.
• that so we leverage federal funds got project<00:46:03.559><c> XYZ</c><00:46:04.559><c> uh</c><00:46:

Committee: House Capital Investment

Transcript Highlights:

• projections.
• So I did want to emphasize that this is a jointly federally funded and state-funded project.
• So I did want to emphasize that this is a joint federally funded and state-funded project.
• As mentioned earlier, it's a joint federal-state project.
• We weren't able to fund that project fully with state and federal trust funds.

Summary: The subcommittee heard updates on several major technology modernization efforts, beginning with the Department of Financial Services’ Florida PALM project, which is replacing the state’s decades-old FLAIR accounting system. DFS described PALM as a statewide effort affecting all three branches of government, with cash management already live and the remaining financial management, payroll, and data warehouse components still in development. Officials said the project began in 2014, was restructured after a 2022 legislative pause, and is now being recommended for a go-live delay from January 2026 to July 2026. Members asked about governance, staffing, contract structure, cost growth, and maintenance costs; DFS said the contract is deliverable-based, the current amendment would add a net $2.2 million, and post-go-live maintenance is expected to be about $13 million annually under the current contract through July 2027. The Agency for Health Care Administration then updated the committee on the FX Medicaid enterprise modernization program. AHCA explained that federal CMS directed states to move from monolithic Medicaid systems to a modular approach, leading Florida to procure separate vendors for integration services, data warehouse, unified operations, provider services, and claims processing, with pharmacy benefits still to be procured. Officials said the project has spent about $334 million to date, with most costs federally matched, and requested $189.95 million for the upcoming year. They also highlighted a 2024 special assessment that produced 81 recommendations, most tied to staffing shortages, and said the Legislature added 47 FTEs, with 17 currently filled or being filled. Members asked about governance changes, production status, data access, and future technology maintenance; AHCA said some components are operational, the data warehouse is nearing certification, and the agency is working to keep the system adaptable and nonproprietary. The Department of Children and Families presented its Access modernization project, which is replacing a mainframe-based eligibility system used for SNAP, TANF, Medicaid assistance, and related programs. DCF said the six-year, $205 million project is in its third year and has already delivered a new customer portal with mobile access, multi-factor authentication, and fraud protections, while also building a worker portal, document management, community partner tools, and workload management functions. The agency said it is requesting $36.625 million for the next fiscal year, the same as last year, and emphasized that the project has remained on schedule and on budget by breaking work into smaller modules and using strong vendor and staff support. Members praised the project’s progress and asked about cybersecurity testing and the long delay before modernization began; DCF said security requirements were built in from the outset and that the remaining work will focus on moving staff off the legacy mainframe and modernizing notices and back-end processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• There were delays, as there often are in federal infrastructure projects, in getting all of these projects
• projects.
• How are we paying our project managers to complete projects?
• Some of these projects are probably ARPA projects as well.
• projects.

Committee: House House Government, Elections & Indian Affairs

Transcript Highlights:

• The Sacramento River Flood Control Project, which was identified there, brought about federal resources
• projects?
• So for a project, the first step is... A project needs to have federal authorization.
• So once the project has that federal authorization, it also needs to obtain state authorization, which
• Cost for very expensive federal projects.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on flood risk and flood management in California, with opening remarks emphasizing that flooding is a statewide and growing threat due to climate change, including the possibility of extreme losses in a worst-case event. Members noted recent flooding in places such as San Diego, the Tulare Basin, and Pajaro, and framed the hearing as a way to better understand prevention, response, and how to capture excess water for later use. Jeffrey Mount of PPIC gave the main overview, describing California’s high flood exposure, the different flood types the state faces, and the mix of structural and non-structural tools used to manage them. He stressed that levees, dams, bypasses, land-use planning, flood insurance, and emergency response all matter, but that risk is rising because current standards are based on past hydrology rather than future climate conditions. He also warned that flood management is underfunded, that the National Flood Insurance Program is weak, and that federal support is increasingly uncertain. Members asked about groundwater recharge, permitting, NOAA and federal cuts, and which communities are most at risk; Mount said recharge can help but does not eliminate flood risk, and that small Central Valley communities and heavily developed floodplains are especially concerning. State officials Laura Hollander of the Department of Water Resources and Jane Dolan of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board described the state’s role in forecasting, emergency response, grants, planning, and the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan. They highlighted aging infrastructure, the need for better coordination, and the state’s special liability in the Central Valley after the Paterno decision. Dolan reviewed the history of major floods and said the plan calls for about $1 billion per year over 30 years to meet current needs, while Hollander said the state works with local and federal partners on preparedness, response, and subventions projects. Both emphasized that floodplain planning, regional coordination, and faster permitting are important, but that more consistent funding is needed. A later panel from local flood agencies and districts reinforced those points, arguing that the state’s annual flood funding is below identified needs and that a proposed statewide flood and dam safety bond was reduced substantially in the broader climate bond package. Witnesses urged more routine maintenance funding, support for regional flood planning, and continued federal-state-local partnerships to reduce risk and maintain eligibility for federal assistance. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the informational hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• THESE PROJECTS.
• AND START A PROJECT OVER OR START A SPECIFIC PIECE OF THAT PROJECT OVER?
• IS THERE A MASTER SCHEDULE PROJECT, MASTER PROJECT SCHEDULE AVAILABLE WE CAN HAVE A COPY OF?
• WHERE THE PROJECT IS GOING.
• YOU PUT THE PROJECT IN SERIOUS JEOPARDY FROM A FEDERAL PARTICIPATION PERSPECTIVE WHEN YOU ARE JUST INCOMPLETE

Transcript Highlights:

• Projects can be 100% federal, but typically they are 90% or 80%, and so we are putting up the remainder
• That program is led by our federal partners, and the timing of projects getting construction funding
• On the other side, we are obligating cash or having to construct projects in tandem with our federal
• On the other side, we are obligating cash or having to construct projects in tandem with our federal
• not to just write a check to the federal government, but to actually construct our project that achieves

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• It relates to our obligations as the non-federal sponsor for these projects to also acquire lands for
• the project and to complete utility relocations for the project.
• Projects yes, okay.
• So we have three projects in our portfolio, the Orange County... project, the Port Arthur project, and
• Port Arthur and Orange County projects have already received federal appropriations the federal government

Bills: SB1 , SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• on federally eligible transportation projects in lieu of state or local match.
• They can be used for the non-federal match on eligible federally funded transportation projects.
• A project that's outside a compact area is 100% federally funded.
• </c><01:28:25.280><c> The</c><01:28:25.520><c> same</c><01:28:25.760><c> project</c> federally funded
• The same project federally funded.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Transcript Highlights:

• Together in that the ARPA federal funds that were utilized in some of these projects had to be obligated
• Leg of the project is moving along, and ultimately when we get into the couple of projects that I'll
• In the summer of 2023, the project manager vendor had been selected, but the project was not on track
• Again, a state and federal project like the others.
• , if you will, of the project.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's the Camp Oralis dining hall project in the amount of $8 million, funded with 64% federal funds and
• </c> mane remediation project. mane remediation project.
• </c> maintenance project. maintenance project.
• </c> project.
• All projects were recommended project.

Summary: The committee first handled routine business, including approval of the June meeting minutes and receipt of several correspondence and information reports. Those reports covered quarterly capital project status updates from state agencies and postsecondary institutions, lease modifications, asset preservation projects, school district debt issuances, and Kentucky Communications Network Authority budget history materials. Members also raised questions about a long-open stream mitigation account and were told the funds are fee-in-lieu stream mitigation monies administered through Fish and Wildlife, with staff promising to follow up on the specific project. The committee then reviewed and approved several capital project actions. These included a new Camp Oralis dining hall project for the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, explained as a reauthorization because the funding split changed to 64% federal and 36% agency funds; an appropriation increase for the Shelbyville armory addition due to higher construction costs and security requirements; and emergency repair projects for Fort Boonesboro flood remediation and the Kentucky State Police Supply Branch fire damage. Members also approved a tenant improvement fund request for parking garage safety improvements at the Mayo Underwood Building. The Office of Financial Management presented three Kentucky Infrastructure Authority items and one Cleaner Water Program reallocation. The loans included a Shepherdsville sewer/drainage project and two Auburn water and lead service line projects; the grant reallocation involved unused Cleaner Water Program funds, with staff emphasizing that all ARPA-funded cleaner water dollars must be spent by December 31, 2026 or returned. After discussion, the committee approved the package. The committee also approved six Economic Development Fund grants, and the Cabinet for Economic Development began presenting the first six KPDI projects, though the transcript cuts off before those project details were completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• projects have been bid.
• This is made up of both projects that are authorized through their operating budget, so federal funds
• We've been successful in securing $330 million. in federal grants to support those projects.
• We were obligated to commit the non-federal match for that project by September 19th, about...
• So when you're letting federal... projects, there are essentially no unique measures you can put into

Transcript Highlights:

• Projects, and so you can see there the allocations can be 100% federal.
• That program is led by our federal partners, and the timing of projects getting construction funding
• On the other side, we are obligating cash or having to construct projects in tandem with our federal
• not to just write a check to the federal government, but to actually construct our project that achieves
• projects?

Committee: House Ways & Means