Transcript Highlights:

• And dispersing loan funds during construction.
• So think of construction lending as the first domino.
• early on during construction.
• the construction loan.
• loan and save the construction interest.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-finance and permitting reforms aimed at making affordable and middle-income housing projects “pencil.” The first panel focused on the welfare property tax exemption, with witnesses arguing that annual recertifications are outdated, burdensome, and costly for both residents and operators. They urged streamlining by aligning eligibility rules with TCAC or HCD monitoring, allowing one-time qualification at occupancy, and preserving exemptions for projects that remain in compliance, especially as insurance costs and operating deficits are rising sharply. A major portion of the meeting centered on social housing and community land trusts under SB 555. HCD described the state’s ongoing study, due by December 31, 2026 and to be included in the 2027 annual report, and outlined public engagement already completed with residents and practitioners. Community land trust and policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action beyond the study, including expanded tax abatements, public land use, soft loans, and simpler capital stacks. They emphasized that the model should include mixed-income and “missing middle” households, and several members discussed the stigma around the term “social housing,” suggesting a rebrand toward generational or multi-generational housing to broaden public support. The committee also discussed a proposed certified professional program modeled on Vancouver, Canada, to speed plan checks and inspections by allowing state-certified private professionals to perform certain code-compliance functions under local oversight. The witness said this would reduce delays, repeated reviews, and cost overruns while preserving local authority over zoning and enforcement. Members raised concerns about local control, infrastructure costs, and political resistance, but expressed interest in exploring a pilot and further recommendations. In the final panel, housing advocates supported allowing HCD loan funds to be disbursed during construction rather than only after completion. They said this would reduce interest costs, improve project feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes without new appropriations. Members agreed the current system is fragmented and outdated, and several speakers and legislators repeatedly called for streamlined, more flexible financing and permitting tools to support housing production.

Transcript Highlights:

• You know, utilities are unique.
• every day and the Public Utilities every day and the Public Utilities Commission<00:05:10.560>
• energy perspective and seek utility energy perspective and seek utility Partners<00:14:59.800>
• and the Public and when uh the utilities and the Public Utilities<00:21:10.279> Commission<00
• <01:07:57.039> I<01:07:57.119> think utility by utility basis and I think utility by

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll next talk about facility utilization.
• colleges look at total utilization rates.
• Sure, we do have, you know, our utilization... Utilization varies campus to campus, of course.
• So it has to be new construction.
• We have projects that are in construction or, you know, we've bid already, early design construction

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh I think construction or in design.
• Uh the interior under construction.
• Additional new construction staff.
• Utility infrastructure replacement.
• The project is in construction.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee on Economic Development, Tourism, and Energy and Environmental Protection met at 9:00 a.m., approved the June 3 minutes, and heard a presentation from the Department of Parks and the Finance Cabinet on Kentucky State Parks capital projects. Commissioner Mark Keelin and Scott Baker described the scope of the state parks system, the ongoing coordination with DECA/Finance Cabinet, and the status of projects funded through House Joint Resolution 76, House Bill 553, House Joint Resolution 56, and House Bill 6. They said 36 of 44 state parks have received renovations or upgrades, with 66 projects completed and 17 under construction, and outlined work on campgrounds, utilities, wastewater systems, broadband, building systems, safety upgrades, ADA improvements, pools, golf courses, marinas, and lodge accommodations. The presenters highlighted several completed or active projects, including campground upgrades at Carter Caves, Ken Lake, and My Old Kentucky Home; utility and grid-resilience work at parks such as Kentucky Dam Village and Kincaid Lake; wastewater projects at parks including E.P. Tom Sawyer, Carter Caves, Dale Hollow, and Blue Licks Battlefield; and building and hospitality renovations at parks such as Lake Barkley, Baron River, and Cumberland Falls. They also noted completed playground upgrades, lock system replacements, beach refurbishment, and golf course improvements, and said the parks system is managing additional internal projects beyond those discussed. The department emphasized that parks often serve as sheltering locations during disasters and that infrastructure replacement is a high priority. Scott Baker then explained DECA’s role in managing the Commonwealth’s capital construction program, saying it oversees about 1,300 active projects across 28 cabinets and agencies, including 149 parks projects. He described DECA’s team-based approach, with dedicated project managers and field staff assigned to parks, and said monthly status meetings and more frequent check-ins are used to keep projects moving. In response to committee questions, Keelin and Baker said projects are assigned to DECA based mainly on the need for architectural or engineering services, while smaller or less complex work can be handled in-house by parks staff or the P11 construction crew. No votes were taken beyond approving the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• I'll next talk about facility utilization.
• So there's— ...in-person utilization rates.
• So it has to be new construction?
• We have projects that are in construction or, you know, we've bid already, early design, construction
• Construction projects.

Summary: The committee’s first major discussion focused on higher education facilities across UC, CSU, and the community colleges, with Chair Alvarez framing the issue as a final budget hearing before the May Revise. The LAO presented findings that campuses have grown substantially in buildings and square footage, while classroom and lab utilization remains below legislative standards and deferred maintenance backlogs continue to rise. The LAO also emphasized that the state and segments lack comprehensive data on capital renewal spending and recommended better reporting, clearer funding targets, and long-term planning for renewal and maintenance. UC, CSU, and community college representatives each described large five-year capital plans, aging facilities, seismic and deferred maintenance needs, and the role of student housing, while noting that construction costs are rising faster than inflation. Members questioned the segments about debt service, utilization rates, and how projects are prioritized. UC said its debt service tied to state support is about $665 million annually and described a $30 billion five-year capital financial plan, including housing, medical centers, and building renewal. CSU said it has about $31 billion in five-year needs and more than $8 billion in deferred maintenance, with funding coming from a mix of state-related and one-time sources since the state shifted capital responsibility to CSU. Community colleges said their unmet facilities needs total about $33.5 billion and explained their use of a scoring matrix and FUSION system to rank projects. The chair and members pressed all three systems to better distinguish between projects that are truly shovel-ready and those that are long-term needs, and discussed whether facilities condition data, total cost of ownership, and more standardized metrics should guide future bond proposals. The committee then turned to Proposition 2 and the Governor’s proposed community college capital outlay projects. The Department of Finance said Prop. 2 provides $1.5 billion for community colleges and that the Governor’s budget proposes 29 projects, with two continuing Prop. 51 projects also included. The LAO supported the overall use of the funds but raised concerns about the current 65/35 split between modernization and growth, the unusually large share of gymnasium projects, and some scoring metrics that favor larger campuses and certain regions. Community college officials said the scoring system was developed through participatory governance and would take one to two years to revise, but they supported the funding and agreed to follow up on questions about project categories and the rationale for the weighting. Members also suggested giving more weight to modernization, regional access, and intersegmental or collaborative projects. A final item addressed the CalKids program. The Department of Finance proposed $56,000 ongoing General Fund for three positions, while the LAO recommended approving two positions but rejecting a manager position until the current $7.5 million marketing campaign is evaluated. ScholarShare’s executive director said CalKids has enrolled more than 5 million children, with nearly 600,000 claims and over $45 million distributed, and argued that additional staff and outreach are needed to reach a goal of 1 million claimed scholarships by the end of 2025 and to implement AB 2808. Members asked about marketing effectiveness, data sharing, and eligibility rules, and the program said it is expanding partnerships with Cradle to Career and CSAC. No final vote was taken in the hearing, and the chair indicated the facilities item would be held open.

Transcript Highlights:

• But the, So it's a judgment call when to utilize those, but that's some of the ways we utilized recently
• We use the Building Construction Index, BCI, similar to CPI, but more specific to construction, to determine
• We use the building construction index, BCI, similar to CPI, but more specific to construction, to determine
• If I'm a construction person, if I'm in the construction side of it, I'm sitting back praying that after
• we've really gained efficiencies because we've utilized firms that DOTD has utilized in the past or

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is just utilizing part of the initial award.
• This is the full construction funding request.
• This is a construction funding request.
• As part of the construction phase, the district will be funding bid lot four, including off-site utility
• and construction phases of the project.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:11:10.880> and would greatly help the utilization and would greatly help the utilization
• :41.840> uh construction of this facility uh construction of this facility uh represents<00:28
• 41:42.880> won't the construction timeline just won't the construction timeline just won't allow
• savings are based on on 2021 utility savings are based on on 2021 utility rates.<00:53:24.000>
• > each<00:53:49.280> of<00:53:49.359> these utility costs for each of these utility

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But the, So it's a judgment call when to utilize those, but that's some of the ways we utilized recently
• We use the building construction index, BCI, similar to CPI, but more specific to construction, to determine
• If I'm a construction person, if I'm in the construction side of it, I'm sitting back praying that...
• And I think that we've really gained efficiencies because we've utilized firms that DOTD has utilized
• That includes roughly $913 million of construction investment and another $287 million in pre-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:

• certificate of need the Public Utilities certificate of need the Public Utilities Commission<00:
• <00:03:54.799> that years for approval and construction that years for approval and construction
• a blank check the Public utility a blank check the Public Utilities<00:04:40.800> Commission<
• the tech uh industries that utilize the tech uh industries that utilize security<00:11:56.240>
• centers um so the Public Utilities centers um so the Public Utilities Commission<00:19:28.280>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• risk from an electric utility perspective.
• It can be utilized for a number of uses power generation, of course.
• The Voyager utilizes power modules to scale this more up and down and capacity.
• We're delighted to be here. >> Scg is the the 25 utilities, their 25 utilities, members of SCG.
• Her 52 includes a combined construction and operating license.

Transcript Highlights:

• And so this is a great opportunity to address maintenance and construction.
• What that 60 cents is going to do is increase the cost of construction.
• My name is Justin Reese, and I represent SDR Construction.
• My name is Justin Reese, and I represent SDR Construction.
• So that's for construction. So you're actually starting the construction on this then? Yeah. Okay.

Keywords: 996, all

Summary: The committee first took up HB 322, which would create a transportation trust fund and transportation program fund. The sponsor offered and the committee adopted an amendment striking the section that would have imposed a 1% gross receipts tax on electricity sales. After a recap of the bill’s remaining provisions, including a $400 million seed amount and future transfers from motor vehicle excise tax revenue, the committee heard brief support from Associated Contractors of New Mexico and the Asphalt Pavement Association and no opposition. The amended bill then passed on a roll-call vote. The committee then heard HB 270, a public works/apprenticeship bill that would require contributions to approved apprenticeship and training programs or to the Public Works Apprentice and Training Fund for public works construction projects, while eliminating an exemption for certain road, highway, utility, and maintenance work. Supporters, including union carpenters, electrical workers, the building trades council, and apprenticeship advocates, argued the bill would expand training, help address labor shortages, and provide a return on public investment. Opponents from utility contractors, highway contractors, and Associated Contractors of New Mexico said they already operate federally approved in-house training programs, warned the bill would raise project costs, and argued some trades have no accessible approved programs. Members questioned how the bill would interact with existing in-house programs, whether rural contractors and nonunion firms would be affected, and whether the state-approved fund and federal highway training requirements could conflict. A proposed amendment to exempt projects of $50 million or less was introduced but tabled. After extensive debate, the committee voted 6-5 to pass HB 270. The meeting also included discussion of a prior procedural error in which HB 270 had been heard before being properly assigned, which the chair said rendered that earlier action void. At the end of the meeting, the committee received a brief New Mexico Department of Transportation District 3 presentation on district projects, budget, and construction status.