Transcript Highlights:

• Those aren't project-changing or project-shifting changes.
• They’re meant to be project- or outcome-determinative changes where it’s no longer really the same project
• document specifically indicating the beginning and completion dates of the project, that construction
• And then they never have to ...come back to the committee until the end of their project if the project
• Most of them have to actually put construction materials on site before they can begin construction.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:04:56.000> projects certain Capital construction projects certain Capital construction
• scope of the actual construction scope of the actual construction project<00:07:03.280> so
• people working on the construction people working on the construction projects<00:08:31.680>
• , construction, and operations of a particular construction or renovation project.
• role in implementing the guidelines on a project-by-project basis. design construction and operations

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Capital Investment Committee met on January 23 and approved the minutes from the previous meeting. The main presentation was from the Office of the Legislative Auditor on its evaluation of Minnesota’s Sustainable Building guidelines, also referred to as B3. The auditors said the guidelines apply to certain new buildings and major renovations funded with general obligation bonds and are intended to improve energy efficiency, occupant health, and environmental quality. They described the program as involving the Departments of Administration and Commerce, the University of Minnesota’s Center for Sustainable Building Research, and project teams, but found widespread confusion over who is responsible for administering and enforcing the program. The auditors reported that oversight and accountability are limited, compliance is not clearly tracked, and there is no agency assigned to ensure projects follow the guidelines or to require compliance data. They said many projects in a review of 2020 bonding projects had not begun tracking compliance, and that up-to-date data were often missing. They also found the law’s stated program objectives are outdated because the referenced energy-code provision was repealed in 2009, and that measurable goals have not been established for most of the guideline categories. The office recommended that the legislature designate a responsible agency, clarify duties in statute, require compliance monitoring and data collection, update the program’s stated goals, and direct systematic evaluation of cost and sustainability outcomes. Members asked about consequences for noncompliance, funding, and whether cost impacts should be studied first. The auditor said the requirements are legal obligations, but no real enforcement consequences have been used so far, and any consequences discussed have been mostly theoretical. She said the Departments of Administration and Commerce were receiving about $1 million combined to support the contract with the Center for Sustainable Building Research, while other state agencies were not receiving dedicated funding for oversight. In response to questions about costs, she said the overall effect of the guidelines on project costs and sustainability is still unknown, but that the legislature could direct an analysis of cost impacts before taking further action.

Transcript Highlights:

• So our current projects that we have that were under construction or in design are all a part of that
• Four of those requests are general fund project requests for construction, new construction to replace
• capital project request is to construct capital project request is to construct a<00:45:49.520><
• So, our second capital project request is to construct a new agriculture science building.
• Our fourth project request in our lineage is to construct a new health science center, health sciences

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:00:55 Approval of Minutes 00:02:01 Information Items 00:02:10 Review of Executive Branch Agency Plans 00:02:20 A. A. Eastern Kentucky University 00:02:48 B. B. Kentucky Community and Technical College System 00:15:21 C. C. Kentucky State University 00:31:43 D. D. Morehead State University 00:41:44 E. E. Murray State University 01:01:56 F. F. Northern Kentucky University 01:16:09 G. G. University of Kentucky and Hospital 01:25:00 H. H. University of Louisville 01:42:52 I. I. Western Kentucky University 01:56:17, 958, all

Summary: The meeting opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, followed by a roll call establishing a quorum. The committee then approved the prior meeting’s minutes. Members were reminded to silence cell phones, and the chair noted an informational item on capital plan amendments made by state agencies during the latest revision period before moving to university capital plan presentations. Eastern Kentucky University President David McFaden outlined EKU’s enrollment growth, strong Kentucky student retention, and signature programs in nursing, occupational therapy, criminal justice, education, manufacturing engineering, and aviation. EKU’s main capital priorities were a new health innovation project to support a proposed osteopathic medical program, including a $50 million escrow requirement until accreditation; a collaborative center for health innovation to address outdated health sciences facilities; a $5 million startup request for an air traffic control program; aircraft upgrades for the aviation fleet; and continued asset preservation funding. In response to questions, EKU said roughly 40% of the new health facility would be dedicated to the medical school, with shared simulation space for multiple health programs, and that aviation maintenance needs are currently being met through KCTCS partners but could be expanded if demand grows. KCTCS representatives then described the system’s scale and capital needs, noting service to 107,000 students, extensive dual credit and workforce training, and a network of 342 buildings across 70 campuses. They said prior legislative support, including $277 million in asset preservation and $90 million released for approved projects, had helped with safety, roofs, energy efficiency, and campus security. Their current priorities include about $30 million for systemwide safety and security upgrades, renovations tied to consolidation and footprint reduction under Senate Joint Resolution 179, and broader asset preservation needs estimated at roughly $300 million to $325 million. Members discussed the need to preserve and expand skilled trades training, and KCTCS said its plan includes construction trades and flexible, multiuse facilities that can adapt to changing workforce needs. No votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes, and the presentations concluded with questions and discussion only.

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.

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:

• Do we really need to get involved on whether a construction project is $5 million or $4 million?
• <00:33:08.399> or<00:33:08.720> $4 construction project is $5 million or $4 construction
• c> to construction or renovation projects to construction or renovation projects to school<01:30:
• So I believe Amy developed a list of construction projects not verified because, again, there may be
• <01:30:54.400> projects list um of construction projects list um of construction projects

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion broadly around whether school building aid should remain a state program, how to address limited revenues, and whether the current system should continue to prioritize debt service and the existing formula or move toward a different model such as per-pupil allocations, a dedicated fund, or a split between new construction and renovation. He also raised questions about whether leasing should be included and how to manage any new fund under current law and the school building authority structure. Representatives and department staff discussed the current backlog of applications, the age and condition of school facilities, and the possibility that large projects can consume available funding for a year while other districts go unsupported. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities introduced himself and provided technical context on the program and current debt levels. Representative Luneau argued that under the ConVal decision, the state’s responsibility includes school buildings, construction, and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property wealth. He noted that construction and renovation have long been recognized categories and asked about leasing, which staff said is already supported in statute for charter schools and possibly CTE, with a cap of 30% of annual lease cost or $50,000. The discussion also covered CTE facilities: staff explained that capital funding for CTE centers is state-funded, that federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction, and that the current rotational capital model means only a few centers are funded each year, which may not match changing program needs. A committee studying CTE capital needs was referenced, along with concerns that the report from that work had not yet been received. Representative Papich urged the subcommittee to focus on policy, principles, and structure rather than just numbers, saying the current system produces a few winners and many districts that never receive aid. He favored a simpler, more equitable per-capita or formula-based approach, while acknowledging the need for a transition plan for projects already in the pipeline. The chair later cautioned against mixing maintenance and operations with construction and renovation, noting that operation and maintenance are already part of the adequacy formula and should not be confused with capital funding. No votes were taken during the meeting; the discussion was exploratory, with members and staff laying out competing approaches and identifying issues for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• First, he starts the project, and it may be a couple of years before construction is complete.
• We did have a lot of problems, and there still is a backlog of construction projects because of those
• Let's, you know, put ten million dollars on this project to finish it so they can start construction.
• So there's several Million dollars on this project, finish it so they can start construction.
• Do you guys have a list that you could provide of outstanding projects that are fully funded that construction

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

Transcript Highlights:

• And what portion of the projects is wages? That was on an overlay project. That's 10% to 20%.
• Bridge Project and the Rose Quarter Project.
• And the Boone Bridge, according to ODOT, is a $725 million project, not a $250 million project.
• is a $5 billion project.
• I offer this just as a starting point: for any project of $100 million or more, don't start construction

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The committee first received an informational update on the Interstate Bridge Replacement Project from Carly Francis and Travis Brower. They described the project’s purpose as improving seismic resilience, safety, freight movement, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian access across the Columbia River, and said the updated cost estimate is $13.2 billion to $14.4 billion for the full corridor. They explained the increase from the 2022 estimate as driven by construction inflation, a more conservative inflation curve, schedule delays, more detailed engineering, and risk modeling. They also outlined the funding plan, including $2.1 billion in federal funds, $1 billion each from Oregon and Washington, and $1.5 billion in projected toll revenue, and said they are working to obligate federal funds by the end of September. The panel described a first funded phase that would include the bridge, highway connections, tolling infrastructure, bridge removal, and transit design, with light rail to Vancouver still intended but dependent on additional funding. Members questioned the risk of losing federal transit funds, whether bridge design decisions were being made with legislative input, and whether the space reserved for light rail could be used for buses if transit funding does not materialize. The committee then heard testimony on maintaining Oregon’s existing roads and bridges from representatives of Knife River, the Asphalt Pavement Association of Oregon, and CRH. Witnesses said pavement and bridge preservation is severely underfunded, with ODOT needing about $400 million per year for pavement preservation but receiving roughly $100 million annually. They showed examples of deteriorating highways such as U.S. 97 and I-84 and argued that delaying maintenance leads to much higher reconstruction costs, more safety risks, and higher user costs. Knife River described layoffs and reduced work in Oregon because of limited preservation funding, while witnesses also said rising wages, equipment costs, fuel, and permitting delays are increasing project costs. Committee members asked about the role of prevailing wage, diesel equipment, hauling distances, and whether preservation work could be prioritized more effectively. Finally, economist Joe Cortright presented on recent ODOT megaproject cost overruns. He said Oregon has experienced persistent overruns driven by overly optimistic revenue forecasts, heavy reliance on debt, consultant costs, inflation above forecast, and projects that have become much larger in scope than originally presented. He cited major increases in the Interstate Bridge, Rose Quarter, and Abernathy Bridge projects and argued that some designs are far wider and more expensive than necessary. Cortright said better accountability, clearer priorities, and more disciplined project sizing are needed, and committee members pressed him on why agencies proceed with larger designs even when consultants recommend narrower, less expensive alternatives.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next, the middle table shows PSCOC fund projection fund project awards.
• However, we are in the design development stage of this project, which puts us right before the construction
• This project has, just to give you some feedback, it's a P-20 project, so it's quite an old project as
• project.
• With all of the other projects, thank you for that; it's a perfect project.

Transcript Highlights:

• We also do some architectural work, the construction administration for all those projects, and uh the
• We also do some architectural work, the construction administration for all those projects, and uh the
• for all construction administration for all those<00:03:18.159> projects<00:03:19.360> and
• that is uh needed state rebuild project that is uh needed state home<00:36:06.400> construction
• <01:14:45.679> or projects are either in construction or projects are either in construction

Keywords: 1183, house

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

Transcript Highlights:

• fund to provide grants for upgrading, constructing, or replacing... ...project fund and to provide grants
• Once the project's obligated, the project sponsor can then move forward and start doing the construction
• Once the project's obligated, the project sponsor can then move forward and start doing the construction
• Drains were capped at $500,000 per project, and construction percentages started to increase.
• Project costs going forward: construction costs total about $30 million.

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to review several interim studies and receive updates from the Department of Water Resources. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and welcomed Representative Hansen to the committee. Staff then reported that the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study had both satisfied the presentation requirements in their study directives, with no further required testimony unless members wanted additional information. The department’s main presentation focused on major water projects and agency operations. Reese Haas and staff updated members on the NAWS project, the Southwest Pipeline Project, Devils Lake outlet operations, low-head dam safety work, floodplain management repository implementation, data center water use, and the 2027 Water Development Plan. Members asked detailed questions about NAWS funding sources, remaining project costs, capacity concerns for All Seasons and other users, and whether current construction is being designed for future demand. The department said NAWS remains on track for substantial completion by October, that remaining NAWS funding will come from a mix of federal, state, and local sources, and that current construction is designed for ultimate capacity while some future components will be adjusted for increased demand. A large portion of the meeting was devoted to the department’s cash management, Resources Trust Fund revenues, carryover balances, and the State Water Commission’s cost-share program. The department reported $340.6 million in carryover remaining, explained that much of it is already obligated to long-term projects, and noted that oil price forecasts and stripper-well exemptions will affect future revenues. Members raised concerns about large carryovers, affordability for local sponsors, and whether the state should continue obligating money multiple bienniums ahead. The department said it is working with the commission on a revised prioritization framework, including high/moderate/low project categories and a two-tier pre-construction/construction approach, to better manage obligations and affordability. The committee also reviewed Deloitte’s finalized studies on regional governance/finance and cost-share policy. Deloitte presented options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River governance, with stakeholders generally favoring keeping NAWS largely as is, using the current Southwest model with improvements, and pursuing a more structured governance option for Red River. On cost share, the department said Deloitte’s recommended package would cover projected needs through the 2030s, but would require policy changes such as lower percentages for some project types, a 25% replacement-project rate with a cap, and possible bonding or delayed reimbursement strategies. No votes were taken on these policy questions, and the chair indicated the committee would continue the discussion at future basin meetings and the September Water Topics meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you look at the plan, I mentioned that our initial plan was to deliver these projects to construction
• Then at the end of the day, we deliver the project to construction over a series of work packages.
• So by the end of this year, we'll actually be under contract to deliver this project to construction,
• forward and advance it and deliver it to construction as part of this I-75 auxiliary lane project.
• This is an interchange project in southwest Florida that's already under construction.

Summary: The Committee on Transportation received a presentation from the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles on Florida’s camera-based traffic enforcement programs: red light cameras, school bus stop-arm cameras, and school zone speed cameras. The department explained how the programs work, including human review of recorded violations, issuance of civil notices to vehicle owners, and escalation to uniform traffic citations if unpaid or uncontested. Officials also outlined the fee structure and reported preliminary data showing 42 red light camera jurisdictions, 496 red light cameras, and more than 923,000 notices of violation in fiscal year 2024-2025, along with growth in school zone and school bus programs. Senators asked about camera placement, signage, review procedures, and whether reviewers or vendors receive revenue from citations; several questions were left for follow-up because the witness did not have all statutory or operational details. The committee then heard an update from FDOT Secretary Jared Perdue on the Moving Florida Forward Infrastructure Initiative, funded by a $4 billion general revenue investment leveraged into a $7 billion program for 20 major projects. He said the initiative is advancing high-priority congestion relief projects across the state, with 80% of the plan expected to be underway by the end of 2026 and the remaining projects in 2027. Perdue highlighted new delivery methods such as modified phased design-build, voluntary acceleration, and structured acceleration, along with workforce and supply-chain efforts, including regional hiring events and aggregate planning. He cited projects such as I-4 congestion relief lanes, Golden Glades, I-95 at US-1, I-75 auxiliary lanes, and I-275 improvements as examples of the program’s progress. Members questioned FDOT about traffic management during construction, subcontracting opportunities for small businesses, public transit planning, contractor safety and fatalities, bridge strikes, logistics access near ports and airports, aggregate supply, local government coordination, and federal funding uncertainty. Perdue said FDOT continuously reevaluates traffic control plans, works with local governments and industry partners, uses small business participation targets, and requires contractors to be in good standing with OSHA and to implement corrective action plans after incidents. He also said Florida’s transportation revenues are flat, the state remains largely state-funded, and additional resources are the main need for future transportation delivery. The committee adjourned after the chair requested FDOT staff provide senators with district-specific project information.

Transcript Highlights:

• ADDITIONALLY I WILL PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE LAKE CI MENTAL HEALTH CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
• BUT THIS PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
• THE PROJECT IS NEARING COMPLETION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE BERNY MCCABE COURTHOUSE IN DOWNTOWN ST.
• THE NEXT PROJECT IS A REPAIR PROJECT WITH THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL.
• THE FOURTH PROJECT IS NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THE SIX DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL.

Transcript Highlights:

• The, it's project specific.
• So if the project then wants to move forward during the next construction season, they actually have
• wastewater project by March 31st, 2026. wastewater project by March 31st, 2026.
• can certify their project for funding for<01:03:30.720> this<01:03:30.960> construction
• This is just a summary of the projects that intend to move forward this next construction season.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• The state is taking note of and does not anticipate any ongoing costs related to this project post-construction
• 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
• Over the next three years in the Port Arthur project alone, we will award eight. total construction contracts

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In terms of the demand to live in newly constructed market-rate projects, immigration is not being affected
• You mentioned two key factors that impact project feasibility, namely rising construction costs and cost
• It's all sorts of construction costs.
• If the changes happen while a project is underway, because projects can take a long time and get delayed
• They're not easy to use on a project-by-project basis unless we start to come up with a common way to

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee heard a series of work-session presentations focused on transit-oriented development, commercial-to-residential redevelopment, building code implementation, housing market trends, and the Covenant Homeownership Program. The first presentation, from the Urban Institute, reviewed research on HB 1491 and TOD feasibility, arguing that Washington has made major progress but faces diverging conditions across transit areas. The presenter said rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and lower rents in some markets have made many projects less feasible, and recommended targeted infrastructure funding for lower-market communities, adjustments to MFTE and affordability requirements by local market conditions, more support for very low-income housing in high-market transit areas, minimum density standards near stations, expanded public land/joint development tools, and better tracking of TOD outcomes over time. Committee members asked about AMI calculations, immigration’s effect on construction labor, developer input, and whether a tracking mechanism had been removed from the bill. The Department of Commerce then outlined implementation of HB 1491 and demonstrated the new Washington Zoning Atlas, which is live and intended to help visualize zoning, overlays, and station-area conditions. Commerce said local governments will designate station areas, update zoning and MFTE policies, and handle anti-displacement measures, with Vancouver and Spokane first to implement and Puget Sound following later. Staff described a timeline for updated MFTE guidance, station-area implementation guidance, a TOD model ordinance, and later rulemaking on variances. The committee also heard from the Lieutenant Governor’s office on a report about converting commercial properties to housing, which found substantial potential for redevelopment on vacant or underused commercial land, especially near transit, but noted barriers such as ground-floor retail mandates, affordability requirements, infrastructure costs, private covenants, and slow implementation. The office urged by-right residential use on commercial land and faster rollout of new housing laws. The State Building Code Council updated the committee on its three-year code cycle and several legislatively directed actions, including minimum dwelling size, emergency shelters, and especially single-exit stairs and multiplex housing. Council staff said those code changes are nearing completion and will provide prescriptive solutions, while noting that elevator size and requirements were not changed and would require separate legislative direction if the committee wanted to revisit them. Members discussed the cost impacts of building and energy codes and the council said it is required to consider economic impacts and is increasingly looking at performance-based approaches. Later, the Washington Center for Real Estate Research presented its annual housing report, showing that higher mortgage rates have sharply reduced affordability, flattened house prices in many cities, and slowed single-family permitting and completions, while multifamily construction has recently cooled after a prior surge. Finally, the Washington State Housing Finance Commission reported strong first-year results for the Covenant Homeownership Program, which provides zero-interest down payment assistance to eligible first-time buyers with family ties to Washington before 1968; the program assisted 547 homebuyers in its first fiscal year, with more than $60 million loaned, and the agency said participation has continued to grow after income-limit changes enacted in 2025.

Transcript Highlights:

• project scope on January 31, 2025.
• of 4.2% in the amount of 294,000, funded... capital projects and pursuant to House capital projects
• project will one project the project will rehabilitate<00:15:56.680> rehabilitate<00:15:57.440
• The project includes an assessment of the aging system and the design and construction components of
• The project includes an assessment of the aging system and the design and construction components of

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first approved the January minutes and then received several informational reports on school district tax levies, revenue bonds, lease advertisements, and previously rejected lease transactions. Members were told that one rejected lease for the Cabinet for Health and Family Services in Hardin County would be canceled and rebid, while a Perry County lease modification for the Energy and Environment Cabinet would proceed. The Kentucky Communications Network Authority also submitted its quarterly capital projects report, and Eastern Kentucky University reported revisions to asset preservation projects. Janice Thomas, Deputy State Budget Director, presented four capital project action items. These included a Kentucky State University Betty White Building renovation funded by USDA grant money, a Department of Education state schools dormitory and cottage renovation appropriation increase because bids exceeded estimates, a restricted-funds scope increase for the Elizabethtown CTC science building expansion, and a pool project report for the Department of Corrections’ KCIW kitchen drain line repair and replacement. Representative Petrie asked about how often the statutory authority for midstream project increases is used and whether bids are typically competitive; Thomas said the increases are used often when bids come in above estimates and that bids are generally competitive, though construction costs have been difficult to gauge. The committee unanimously approved the first three action items, and the KCIW project was reported with no action required. H. Sandy Williams of the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority then presented six loans and one emergency grant. The items included loans for Frankfort’s East Frankfort Interceptor wet weather facility project, Sturgis wastewater improvements, Scottsville inflow and infiltration work, Morganfield wastewater treatment plant planning and design, Western Pulaski County Water District transmission improvements, and Springfield water system planning and replacement work, plus an emergency Kentucky Waters grant for Eddyville following a sewer treatment plant failure and local emergency declarations. After no questions, the committee unanimously approved the seven KIA transactions. Chelsea Couch then presented a Kentucky Housing Corporation conduit issuance for $38.4 million to finance a multifamily rental project in Jefferson County; members asked how the committee participates and were told it was a conduit issuance rather than state debt. The committee approved that item. Finally, the committee heard an informational Turnpike Authority refunding issuance of about $53 million for present value savings, then approved four SFCC debt issues for Henderson, Pulaski, Scott, and Trimble counties to finance school renovations and construction. The meeting ended with notice of the next meeting date and location.

Transcript Highlights:

• Projects coming for future awards include teacher housing projects; 7 are standards projects.
• Because when we talk about future funding, are we talking about the funding to construct this project
• project.
• As of August 1st this year, the PSFA staff is currently managing 153 active construction projects across
• PSEOC funded projects that are in construction closeout stages, which are 10, and they are making progress

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, this particular project is going to construct a terminal building out at the Central Kentucky Regional
• Uh this particular project is going to be<00:02:48.160> construct<00:02:48.480> a<00:02
• The project will construct a new pump station which is required to effectively manage the water levels
• The project will construct a new pump station which is required to effectively manage the water levels
• So these particular projects at Lake Barkley are due to basically the contingency for the construction

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee first received several information items, including University of Kentucky reports on medical and research equipment purchases, five school districts’ planned bond issues, and a School Facilities Construction Commission list of prior debt issues. Members then heard and approved an appropriation increase for a federally funded University of Kentucky project at the Central Kentucky Regional Airport in Richmond. The project will construct a terminal building and is tied to EKU’s airport operations and planned flight school; members asked about the public funding, the role of EKU, and possible aviation expansion, and the item was approved by roll call. The committee next approved a University of Kentucky lease purchase for an 85,000-square-foot facility at 415 West Sun Street in Morehead for $6.4 million. UK said the property, formerly the Rowan County Board of Education site, is directly across from UK St. Clair and will be used for multiple purposes; members questioned the quarterly payment structure and why the county preferred not to receive the full amount upfront, but the item was approved. The committee then heard three appropriation increases in the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet: a Fish and Wildlife pump project at Ballard Wildlife Management Area and two Lake Barkley State Resort Park repair projects. Finance staff explained the Lake Barkley increases were mainly to cover construction contingencies after bids came in close to available funding, and the committee approved the action items. Janice Thomas then presented four pool projects requiring no action: HVAC upgrades at the Future Farmers of America Leadership Training Center in Hardinsburg, geothermal and HVAC work at the Kentucky School for the Blind, a Brady Hall HVAC project at the Kentucky School for the Blind, and a renovation of Shanti Hall at Kentucky State University for the School of Engineering Technology. Members asked no substantive questions on those items. Finally, Natalie Broner presented a new CHFS lease in Wayne County and a Transportation Cabinet lease modification in Christian County. The Wayne County lease drew the most discussion, with members questioning the rent, the lack of other bids, and whether another county location might be preferable; CHFS said it maintains county-seat offices statewide and that the Wayne County site would replace an existing office. The Christian County item was described as a replacement site for driver licensing services with renovation costs largely absorbed by the lessor. Both lease items were presented for action after the discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, today we're construction of it.
• It's not just an important project for the city, but it's a destination project for the state as well
• of roads and utilities for construction of roads and utilities for the<00:04:10.320> project.
• The city will use a the project.
• state it's a destination project for the state it's a destination project for the state as<00:05:

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: Representative Clardy introduced House File 4238, seeking a $5 million state general obligation investment for roads and infrastructure in Inver Grove Heights tied to the planned Minnesota Hockey Hall of Fame project, along with a separate requested $20 million cash appropriation for the facility itself. He described the bill as having statewide value and asked to focus first on the $5 million GO request. Mayor Brenda Dietrich and Community Development Director Jason Ziemer testified in support, calling the Hall of Fame a once-in-a-lifetime, transformative project for the city, the Twin Cities region, and the state. They said Inver Grove Heights expects to invest $14 million to $17 million locally for land acquisition and site improvements, and that the state funds would help pay for roads, utilities, stormwater work, grading, and right-of-way needs. They also emphasized that the public investment would support broader economic development in the area and accommodate a future I-494 interchange. Members asked about long-term ownership and maintenance, and were told the facility would be privately owned, with a developer owning about half and the Minnesota Hockey Hall of Fame nonprofit owning the ice arena portion. Another question raised whether the project would compete with the U.S. Hockey Hall of Fame; testifiers said it would instead work in tandem, with collaboration on exhibits and a potential benefit to the Eveleth institution. No vote or formal action was taken in the portion of the meeting shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• a specific eligible project.
• <00:13:12.320> projects<00:13:12.639> was The total construction costs for all the
• build bridge projects in the pipeline. build bridge projects in the pipeline.
• Projects that keep our towns projects.
• for construction. for construction.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all