Transcript Highlights:

• This is an additional construction funding request for the systems project.
• Major new construction projects that we could handle.
• So several of the major construction projects did go in the drawer.
• So several of the major construction projects did go in the drawer.
• committing major construction dollars to projects that are stalled.

Transcript Highlights:

• So this amendment doesn't change the type of projects that would qualify for construction material tax
• <00:12:48.399> projects taxpayer funded construction projects taxpayer funded construction
• get these construction projects able to get these construction projects able to get off<00:13:51.880
• This project involves a roofing project, as well as some playground remodeling, retaining wall construction
• Bond project recent uh uh construction Bond project in<00:55:51.960> in<00:55:52.200> the<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• as construction, and then building those projects at the department.
• Secretary Ladegh mentioned our multi-year construction projects.
• Projects that have a five-year pre-construction schedule, we're not delivering those projects within
• sure we have enough money to get that next construction project out.
• Because nobody wants to stop a project in the middle of construction.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held an informational hearing on the state capital outlay process, with Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration’s Office of Facilities Planning and Control (FPNC) presenting a detailed review of House Bill 2 and proposed improvements. They said FPNC administers about 54% of the bill, while other agencies administer the rest, and emphasized that the capital outlay program has improved significantly over the last few years, with project expenditures more than doubling due to better cash-flow management, staffing changes, and more efficient project administration. They also explained how the bill is structured by priorities, how the priority-one cash line of credit is capped and adjusted for construction inflation, and how the bill has grown into a much larger, longer-range plan than a true five-year program, especially on the non-state side. A major theme was that the bill contains too many dormant, legacy, and low-priority projects, which creates false expectations and ties up funding. Committee members pressed the presenters on culture change, third-party project management, staffing shortages, and the use of technology and statutory interpretation to speed projects without sacrificing compliance. Husser and Baker said they had reduced internal bureaucracy, used staff augmentation because of hiring difficulties, delegated smaller projects to agencies when appropriate, and improved cash-flow analysis so projects can move forward with less money up front. They also discussed overappropriations, dormant projects, and the need to reappropriate unused funds to projects that can actually spend them. The presenters offered several recommendations and considerations: limit the number and size of new projects, reduce scope creep, require more regular endorsement of long-running projects, consider caps on priority-five funding, impose time limits and reporting requirements on non-state grant projects, and possibly require non-state entities to escrow or otherwise demonstrate their match earlier. They also suggested bundling related projects together, expanding that approach beyond the current pilot, and improving transparency by showing full project funding history and the first year each project appeared in the bill. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with members generally supportive of the efficiency reforms while also raising concerns about false hope, dormant projects, and the need for clearer expectations and accountability.

Bills: HB3327, HB3711, HB4104, HJR1077, HB3329, HB4322, HB4202, HB4203, HB4457, HB3983, HB3660, HB3802, HB2933, HB2955, HB2956, HB3781, HB3521, HB3794, HB3796, HB3800, HB3183, HB4316, HB4484, HB3469, HB3464, HB3173, HB3989, HB3016, HB2979, HB2988, HB2288, HB3062, HB3315, HB3372, HB3530, HB3622, HB3755, HB4266

Keywords: State Board of Education, Oklahoma education board, board appointments, school governance, education reform, governor appointments, legislative appointments, speaker of the house, president pro tempore, senate confirmation, board vacancies, removal for cause, public education, state superintendent, school board training, board member qualifications, emergency clause, Oklahoma statutes 70 O.S. 3-101, school funding, transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• When I moved out of the House, he and Senator Scofield and I worked early on this project.

Bills: SJR 3, SB 5, SB 21, SB 72, SB 703, SB 764, SB 790, SJR 36, SJR 3, SJR 34, SJR 18, SCR 9, SB 616, SB 565, SB 384, SB 5, SB 21, SB 72, SB 140, SB 262, SB 370, SB 372, SB 495, SB 627, SB 703, SB 764, SB 842, SB 971, SB 790, SB 767, SB 480, SB 1066, SB 929, SB 765, SB 523, SB 62, SB 19, SB 18, SB 666, SB 688, SB 707, SB 888, SB 687, SB 706, SB 847, SB 869, SB 890, SB 992, SB 1145, SB 494, SB 290, SB 766, SB 11, SB 10, SB 13, SB 263, SJR 3, SB 5, SR 172, SR 176, SR 177, SR 190, SR 193, SR 194, SR 202, SR 203, SR 208

Keywords: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, research institute, funding, grants, state health initiatives, cryptocurrency, bitcoin, investment reserve, economic resilience, financial security, vehicle rental, damage waiver

Transcript Highlights:

• year by 2060. the population of Americans age 65 and older with Alzheimer's or other dementias is projected
• of the Oversight Committee and the Health and Human Services Commission will ensure that research projects

Bills: SJR3, SB5, SB21, SB72, SB703, SB764, SB790, SJR36, SJR3, SJR34, SJR18, SCR9, SB616, SB565, SB384, SB5, SB21, SB72, SB140, SB262, SB370, SB372, SB495, SB627, SB703, SB764, SB842, SB971, SB790, SB767, SB480, SB1066, SB929, SB765, SB523, SB62, SB19, SB18, SB666, SB688, SB707, SB888, SB687, SB706, SB847, SB869, SB890, SB992, SB1145, SB494, SB290, SB766, SB11, SB10, SB13, SB263, SJR3, SB5, SR172, SR176, SR177, SR190, SR193, SR194, SR202, SR203, SR208

Keywords: dementia, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, research funding, state budget, prevention, healthcare, medical research, Dementia Prevention and Research Institute, research institute, funding, grants, state health initiatives, cryptocurrency, bitcoin, investment reserve, economic resilience, financial security, vehicle rental, damage waiver

Transcript Highlights:

• And then as the projects progress through construction, we budget contingency.
• as construction, and then building those projects at the department.
• Secretary Ladegh mentioned our multi-year construction projects.
• Projects that have a five-year pre-construction schedule, we're not delivering those projects within
• Because nobody wants to stop a project in the middle of construction.

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:

• Now District 2 has $150 million of projects ready to go after construction.
• You specific guys for construction projects.
• This is representative of how we allocate and pay for our construction projects.
• Completed construction project in New Mexico 337.
• Chairman and Representative Dow, with every construction project and even a lot of maintenance projects

Transcript Highlights:

• actual construction cost is. actual construction cost is.
• Before any project selected under the grid resilience program can move into contracting and construction
• construction phases.
• We do expect that those municipal projects will go into construction in the first quarter of 2026, and
• project plan.

Keywords: 00:02 EEC – State-Owned Dams 21:07 EEC – Grid Resilience Grant Funds 37:24 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The committee heard presentations from the Department for Environmental Protection and the Office of Energy Policy on Kentucky’s state-owned dam repair program and the electric grid resilience program. Commissioner Tony Hatton explained how state dams are defined and classified under Kentucky law, the criteria used to prioritize repairs or decommissioning, and the status of several projects funded in the last biennium. He said the department is using a design-bid-build process, with major work planned or underway at Willisburg Lake, Big Bone Lick State Park Dam, Clemens Lake Dam, Marion County Sportsman’s Dam, Chinoa Lake Creek/Canning Creek Dam, and Lake Malone, and that $0.5 million is reserved for routine repairs. He also described the timeline and cost pressures, noting that construction seasons and bid uncertainty can affect schedules and estimates. Members asked several questions about whether the estimates were current, how accurate the bids tend to be, why the process takes so long, and whether it would be better to fund design separately before construction. Hatton said the estimates are the best current engineering estimates, that costs often stay within about 10% but can vary, and that the overall process is usually closer to two years than four, though delays can occur. He also said all of the allocated dam funds must be available before bids can be let. The committee discussed whether design work can become stale if construction is delayed. Kenya Stump then updated the committee on Kentucky’s electric grid resilience program under federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funding. She said Kentucky has received years one through three of the five-year program and has allocated funds to state park electric systems and municipal utilities, with years four and five not yet received. She identified Ken Lake State Park and Kentucky Dam Village as the two state park projects in progress, and Owensboro, Princeton, Williamstown, and Hopkinsville as the municipal projects selected through a competitive process. She said the projects are under contract or in final negotiations, with municipal construction expected to begin in the first quarter of 2026 and finish by the end of 2026, and explained that the work includes line, pole, transformer, meter, and outage-management upgrades. Members asked about the relationship between this program and prior park appropriations, the timing of agreements with Parks, and whether the park systems could eventually be transferred to the local electric cooperative; Stump said the park agreements are imminent and that the upgrades are intended to bring the systems up to code so the cooperative can maintain them. No votes were taken, and the chair adjourned the committee until the following Wednesday, with a possible time change to avoid a scheduling conflict.

Transcript Highlights:

• Before any project selected under the grid resilience program can move into contracting and construction
• construction phases.
• We do expect that those municipal projects will go into construction in the first quarter of 2026. western
• project plan.
• project plan.

Keywords: 958, all

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:

• As I mentioned, the core set of projects—so here is a visual of what those core projects look like.
• what we call key personnel so that your project manager for this, your construction manager, your design
• To build the entire project.
• This is a public works project.
• This is a public works project.

Summary: The Joint Committee on Interstate 5 Bridge met remotely with Washington legislative members to receive updates on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, including environmental review, cost and funding, tolling, and procurement for construction. Program staff said the final supplemental environmental impact statement was published in April 2026, with a federal record of decision expected in early summer. They described the recommended design as a single-level fixed-span bridge, centered I-5 alignment, C Street ramps, one auxiliary lane in each direction, and dispersed park-and-ride parking. Members raised concerns about transparency, the closed chat function, and the decision not to include two auxiliary lanes; staff said the one-lane option was recommended through consultation with partner agencies and analysis, but the final decision would come with the record of decision. Staff also said the diversion analysis projected less than 3% traffic diversion to I-205 in 2045, though members from Oregon and Washington expressed concern about impacts to their communities and asked for more detail on mitigation and decision-making. The committee also reviewed a major cost update. Staff said the full five-mile program is now estimated at $13.5 billion to $15.2 billion, with a likely cost of $14.4 billion, up from a 2022 estimate of $5 billion to $7.5 billion, citing inflation, schedule delays, scope changes, and more detailed risk modeling. They said the first funded phase has been reduced to a $5.68 billion package focused on the Columbia River bridge replacement, connections to I-5, Hayden Island and SR-14, bridge demolition, tolling infrastructure, and advancing light rail design. Funding for that phase was described as $5.69 billion, including $2.1 billion federal funds, $1 billion from each state, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue. Members asked what would happen if costs rise further; staff said the estimate includes substantial contingency, the project will use progressive design-build to manage risk, and the team will continue updating the finance plan annually. A separate tolling and traffic-revenue presentation explained that four toll scenarios were analyzed using regional travel demand modeling, a toll diversion model, and a post-processing review. All scenarios assume pre-completion tolling beginning July 1, 2028, a 50% low-income discount for eligible users, and exemptions for tribal preemptions, emergency vehicles, maintenance vehicles, and organized militia. Staff said the low-income discount would affect about 4% to 6% of annual transactions and reduce annual revenues by roughly 2% to 3%. They said Scenario 2 was used for the financial analysis and is sufficient to support the $1.5 billion toll contribution in the funded phase. Members asked about toll collection costs, revenue impacts of the discount, and how the scenarios differed; staff said collection costs are expected to be in line with other WSDOT toll facilities, but exact costs are not yet set because toll rates are not final. Finally, WSDOT staff outlined procurement and delivery steps for construction. They said WSDOT will be the lead contracting agency, using progressive design-build, with a request for qualifications targeted for early July 2026, a request for proposals in October, contractor selection in April 2027, construction starting in 2028, and tolling beginning in 2028. Staff said the approach is intended to consolidate scope, reduce interface risk, and allow transparent negotiation with an independent cost estimator, while preserving an off-ramp if a fair price cannot be reached. Members asked for more detail on timing, cost allocation, and the share of the first phase funded by tolls; staff estimated tolls account for about 26% of the first phase cost.

Transcript Highlights:

• construction projects. So, nothing new. construction projects. So, nothing new.
• <00:14:17.920> project take the entire construction project take the entire construction project
• rehabilitation construction projects. rehabilitation construction projects.
• construction project or level three construction project or level three project.<00:15:19.279>
• > begin<00:19:00.320> construction projects are ready to begin construction projects are

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are actually managing the construction for a project from District 3.
• We are actually doing managing the construction for a project from District 3.
• Most of them are construction projects.
• We have five construction project offices and four special crews.
• And I'll go to page 6, which is the construction projects.

Keywords: 996, all

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

Transcript Highlights:

• project.
• project.
• what we call key personnel so that, you know, your project manager for this, your construction manager
• This is a public works project.
• This is a public works project.

Keywords: 904, all

Bills: SB27, SB30, SB293, HB4, HB2974, HB5138, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, HB748, HB3395, HB180, HB3171, HB146, HB5596, HB5694, HB1135, HB3225, HB186, HB1449, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB3336, HB3520, HB3320, HB5663, HB2399, HB111, HB3483, HB4580, HB3748, HB632, HB4730, HB5690, HB5689, HB3385, HB4359, HB5381, HB123, HB5606, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59

Keywords: judicial conduct, judges discipline, judicial compensation, retirement benefits, judicial transparency, SJR 50, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, securities tax, transaction tax, occupation tax, financial markets, broker-dealer, stock exchange, securities exchange, trading platform, clearing agency, transfer agent, FINRA

Bills: SB27, SB30, SB293, HB4, HB2974, HB5138, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1944, SB1232, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB2683, SB1319, SB3045, SB3071, HB796, HB1523, HB5294, HB748, HB3395, HB180, HB3171, HB146, HB5596, HB5694, HB1135, HB3225, HB186, HB1449, HB3793, HB112, HB104, HB3336, HB3520, HB3320, HB5663, HB2399, HB111, HB3483, HB4580, HB3748, HB632, HB4730, HB5690, HB5689, HB3385, HB4359, HB5381, HB123, HB5606, HB1057, HB3664, HCR141, HCR40, HCR59

Keywords: judicial conduct, judges discipline, judicial compensation, retirement benefits, judicial transparency, SJR 50, constitutional amendment, Texas Constitution, Article VIII, securities tax, transaction tax, occupation tax, financial markets, broker-dealer, stock exchange, securities exchange, trading platform, clearing agency, transfer agent, FINRA

Transcript Highlights:

• bringing together project owners, construction companies, unions, workforce development programs, and
• Here in Minnesota, we also know we have a very short construction season, but project deadlines must
• Here in Minnesota, we also know we have a very short construction season, but project deadlines must
• Here in Minnesota, we also know we have a very short construction season, but project deadlines must
• You know, while we're a construction company, we're based on all the projects we have.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• cost of the project?
• project.
• Some of the earlier projects within the program, as far as construction goes, and a little bit more detail
• The earliest anticipated construction advertisements for those projects.
• That's the approaches project, which is also a bi-state-led project. Next slide.

Summary: The committee met jointly with the Washington-Oregon Legislative Action Committee for an update on the Interstate 5 Bridge Replacement (IBR) program. Members first adopted the proposed committee rules, then received program updates from staff on environmental review, permitting, design, tribal consultation, and public engagement. Staff said the project remains in the supplemental EIS process, with a final supplemental EIS and amended record of decision expected in early 2026, which would allow construction to begin. They also described ongoing work on Coast Guard navigation clearance, Section 106 historic-property coordination, and architectural guidelines for the bridge and five-mile corridor, emphasizing that the visualizations shown were conceptual and that public and partner feedback has already influenced design considerations such as accessibility and shared-use path connections. Members raised concerns about schedule delays, rising costs, and whether the project is being designed to be functional, safe, and economical. Staff acknowledged that the timeline has slipped from earlier expectations and said the delay reflects the complexity of the environmental and federal review process, as well as the need to avoid redoing steps. They said the updated cost estimate is being prepared now that design has advanced to roughly 30 percent, and that it will account for inflation, risk factors, and both fixed-span and movable-span options. Staff estimated a movable span would add more than $400 million and said the first construction work after environmental approval would likely be preliminary freeway and retaining-wall work in late 2026, followed by the bridge procurement. The committee also received funding and tolling updates. Staff reported that major federal grants have been executed, including Mega and Bridge Investment Grant agreements, and that state STIP amendments are advancing to allow access to federal funds. The tolling team described Level 3 traffic-and-revenue work, a bi-state tolling subcommittee process, and possible toll scenarios aimed at supporting either about $1.24 billion or $1.6 billion in toll revenue. Members questioned low-income toll relief timing, truck toll rates, and the effect of tolls on freight users. Staff said low-income discounts are being analyzed for both revenue and operational feasibility, that tribal exemptions and other policy exemptions are under review, and that the commissions expect to move into public outreach on toll rates and policies in 2026, with tolling on the existing bridges currently projected to begin in spring 2027.

Transcript Highlights:

• Once they start construction, the risk to the project is extremely, extremely low, given the amount of
• Mutual Housing right now is a project under construction on an excess land site. Just a few...
• Mutual Housing right now is a project under construction on an excess land site just a few blocks away
• That's a $10 million award, and we are saving the project over $1 million in construction interest.
• It's also worth noting that the timing for this construction period... The overall project costs.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related proposals and policy ideas. One speaker urged changes to the welfare property tax exemption for affordable housing, arguing that annual income recertifications are outdated and burdensome, and proposing a one-time qualification at move-in, streamlined monitoring through TCAC or HCD, and continued exemption protection for projects that remain in compliance. The witness said rising insurance costs and administrative burdens are hurting cash flow and threatening the viability of affordable housing operations. A major portion of the meeting focused on social housing and the SB 555 study. HCD described its ongoing study process, including public engagement with residents, practitioners, and experts, and noted that California already has many building blocks for social housing, such as public land tools, long-term affordability mechanisms, community land trusts, and tenant protections. Community land trust and housing policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action, expanded public subsidy, tax abatements, public land, and simplified financing, and they emphasized the need to reframe the concept for the “missing middle” and middle-class households to build broader political support. Committee members discussed stigma around “social housing,” the need for a rebrand, and the possibility of a pilot program, especially on excess public land. The committee also heard a proposal for a certified professional plan-check system modeled on Vancouver, Canada. The presenter said California’s permitting delays, inconsistent reviews, and staffing shortages add cost and uncertainty even for streamlined projects, and proposed allowing state-certified private professionals to perform plan checks and inspections under state oversight while local governments retain zoning and enforcement authority. Members discussed local control concerns, infrastructure costs, and the need to reduce delays and uncertainty in the entitlement process. Finally, the committee heard testimony supporting changes to HCD loan disbursement so funds can be used during construction rather than only after completion. Witnesses said this would reduce interest costs, improve feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes with existing funding. The discussion also referenced AB 1053 as the vehicle for implementing that approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• construction projects that are requested construction projects that are requested by<00:21:53.520
• projects. uh that pool of construction projects. uh that pool of $700<00:23:46.480> million<00
• construction projects a little more construction projects a little more costly. costly. costly.
• priority new capital construction priority new capital construction projects<00:27:00.159> for
• prioritization of those construction prioritization of those construction projects<00:29:14.320>

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:11 Approval of Minutes 00:02:00 Information Items 00:02:25 CPE Special Report 00:03:26 Review of Executive Branch Agency Plans 00:31:48 A. Attorney General 00:32:10 B. Court of Justice 00:36:41 C. Cabinet for Economic Development 00:50:44 D. Kentucky Public Pensions Authority 00:56:06 E. Board Discussion of Planning Issues 01:05:12, 958, all

Summary: The Capital Planning Advisory Board opened its fourth meeting, confirmed a quorum, approved the prior meeting’s minutes by unanimous voice vote, and then heard information items and agency presentations. The main substantive presentation came from the Council on Postsecondary Education, which outlined its capital planning recommendations for the 2026–28 biennium. CPE staff described the role of Kentucky’s research and education network (Kron), including connectivity to cloud services, Internet2, identity services, and new local AI/inferencing capacity, and argued that the network is now essential to higher education, health care, and extension services. They said the network’s recent upgrades were driven by privacy, security, redundancy, and the need to support modern research and AI workloads at lower cost than commercial providers. CPE also presented its broader higher-education capital request: $700 million for asset preservation and $1.73 billion for new construction, for a total recommendation of about $2.4 billion. Staff said they do not plan to recommend IT projects or equipment in this cycle, despite reviewing 48 IT submissions totaling nearly $1.4 billion and equipment requests totaling $322.6 million. For asset preservation, they said the recommended allocation method would remain based on each institution’s share of Category 1 and 2 square footage, and they noted that the state’s prior facility assessment is now 12 years old, with deferred maintenance still estimated in the $7–9 billion range. For new construction, they said the requests are heavily focused on STEM and health-related facilities that are difficult to retrofit into older buildings. Board members asked about how asset-preservation amounts were determined, including why Northern Kentucky University’s request was much larger than its prior allocation. CPE staff responded that campus size, building age, and institutional prioritization affect the requests, and that schools are asked to submit more projects than are likely to be funded. The board then moved on to an Attorney General capital plan overview, where senior counsel Will Schroeder began describing the office’s technology needs and the office’s prior reliance on a 2020 appropriation to replace legacy systems and improve security.