Transcript Highlights:

• Because of AIA construction of homes.
• necessarily take into account utility necessarily take into account utility costs?
• construction codes advisory council construction codes advisory council actually<00:24:20.480>
• We're not talking about utility costs. We're not talking about utility costs.
• long term about those utilities costs. long term about those utilities costs.

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: Representative Mecklin moved House File 3545 to the general register and offered a DE amendment that removed the commissioner’s authority to choose a more efficient standard and removed the requirement that the 2038 residential energy code achieve a 70% reduction in annual net energy consumption compared with the 2006 energy use index. The amendment was adopted, and the bill was then discussed as amended. Mecklin said the bill was intended to address home affordability, arguing that energy code requirements add to housing costs and make it harder for younger Minnesotans to buy homes. Several testifiers opposed the bill, including representatives from the Center for Energy and the Environment, AIA Minnesota, Sierra Club, Fresh Energy, Housing First Minnesota, and ARXUS. They argued that energy codes are not a primary driver of housing costs, that stronger codes do not slow housing production, and that more efficient homes lower utility bills and improve comfort, safety, resilience, and climate outcomes. Testifiers cited studies and examples showing payback over time, including estimates that efficiency upgrades could pay for themselves in five to nine years and save homeowners tens of thousands of dollars over 30 years. The Department of Labor and Industry said it had concerns about the bill because it would move away from a more energy-efficient standard and could create unintended consequences in the code adoption process, though it said the current technical advisory group process already considers cost concerns. Members questioned the cost and savings estimates, especially the comparison between higher upfront mortgage costs and lower utility bills. Fresh Energy explained that its figures were based on Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Slipstream analyses using a typical Minnesota home and that the savings were modeled over time. Representative Johnson expressed skepticism about the assumptions behind the savings numbers and argued that utility costs are not the main barrier to homeownership. The chair said the committee intended to take a vote on the bill that day, but the transcript ends before any final vote or disposition is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• still a rookie in the in the utility still a rookie in the in the utility industry,<00:02:42.239
• They start calling other utilities.
• Um, they will require a lot of construction and construction traffic.
• Um, they will require a lot of construction and construction traffic.
• Um, they will require a lot of construction and construction traffic.

Keywords: Meeting Start - 00:00 Roll Call – 00:15 Approval of Minutes of the July 15, 2025, Meeting 00:55 Helping Power Kentucky’s Growth – 01:25 Powering and Deploying AI – 41:00 Fueling America’s Intelligence – 56:12 Adjournment – 01:10:37, 958, all

Summary: The Artificial Intelligence Task Force met with a quorum, adopted prior meeting minutes, and then focused on energy policy and economic development as they relate to AI and data centers. John Bevington of LG&E and KU, introduced by Caroline Clark of LG&E/KU and PPL, described the utility’s Kentucky-only service territory, vertically integrated system, 1.3 million customers, and about 7.5 gigawatts of generating capacity. He said the company has supported 76 Kentucky projects in 2024 totaling about $3 billion in announced investment and roughly 3,000 jobs, with a large share of statewide announcements occurring in its service area. Bevington said LG&E and KU’s current project pipeline is unusually strong, totaling about 170 projects and 8.5 gigawatts of requested power, with data centers accounting for about two-thirds of that demand. He broke the pipeline into existing customer expansions, new-to-Kentucky projects, and 20 data center projects representing about 5.6 gigawatts of potential load. He highlighted a Louisville data center project by PO Development Company and Powerhouse Data Centers that has announced a 400-megawatt facility and may expand to 525 megawatts, estimating that such a project could represent about $4 billion in investment. He also explained that large data centers generally must locate near transmission lines and that utilities must conduct studies, order long-lead equipment, and secure reimbursement commitments before proceeding so other customers are not harmed. Members asked about how Kentucky compares with other states, the size of data center projects, and whether regulatory reform is needed. Bevington said the 20 projects reflect current Kentucky interest, which he attributed in part to the state’s sales tax exemption for data centers, and noted that states like Ohio have had similar incentives for years. In response to questions from Senator Thomas, he confirmed that data centers can vary in size and said the state should have a regulatory environment that supports economic development, while emphasizing that the benefits would flow to the state, local communities, and schools rather than just the utility. He also cited national and regional data suggesting data centers generate indirect jobs and tax revenue, and said LG&E and KU are investing in transmission, reliability, solar, and gas generation projects, including proposed additional 645-megawatt natural gas units and other system upgrades, to meet expected demand.

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.

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:

• <00:29:47.960> customers utility customers utility customers more<00:29:50.120> communities
• <00:29:59.720> customers will impose costs on utility customers will impose costs on utility
• of a big Mega plant being constructed of a big Mega plant being constructed but<00:30:44.480>
• <00:35:17.599> and will make sense for our utilities and will make sense for our utilities
• > through<00:35:19.040> their our utilities that work through their our utilities that

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 9 was heard as a proposal to alter Minnesota energy policy by creating exemptions and “off-ramps” from the state’s 2023 clean energy requirements. The bill would expand hydroelectric power’s eligibility, end the moratorium on new nuclear plants, delay certain carbon-free energy compliance requirements for utilities that do not meet a retail rate benchmark, restrict demolition of fossil fuel plants under that same benchmark, support carbon capture and sequestration, and expand the sales tax exemption for residential natural gas and electricity used as primary heat year-round. The author moved the A1 amendment, which clarified that the carbon capture policy language does not create a state funding obligation; the committee took up the amendment with no discussion and proceeded to a vote, though the result was not stated in the transcript. The bill was then referred to the Committee on Taxes. The author and supporters argued the bill is needed to improve reliability and affordability, especially during extreme cold, and said current mandates are forcing coal retirements faster than replacement generation can be built. They cited MISO and NERC reliability concerns, Xcel’s proposed rate increases, and the need for an “all-of-the-above” energy approach that includes nuclear and hydro. Supporters also said the bill would help keep energy costs down for families and businesses and would allow Minnesota to use existing generation assets longer if rate targets are not met. Testimony from the Minnesota Rural Electric Association and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce supported the bill’s emphasis on reliability, affordability, nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and carbon capture. The Chamber said Minnesota’s electricity costs have become less competitive for businesses and argued that stable, affordable power is essential for economic growth and future technologies such as AI. The Minnesota Utility Investors also supported allowing new nuclear and all hydro power to be considered. In contrast, the Prairie Island Indian Community opposed lifting the nuclear moratorium without a viable long-term waste solution, describing its long history living near the Prairie Island nuclear plant and spent fuel storage and urging continued consultation on the issue. Xcel Energy said it supports low rates and sees nuclear as one option, but emphasized that any support for lifting the moratorium depends on full participation by the Prairie Island Indian Community and that decisions about retiring fossil plants should remain within the existing Public Utilities Commission resource planning process.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you're utilizing it from a coal plant, you get it for 10 years.
• She's our statewide construction manager.
• Construction has begun with site work and underground utilities underway. semis are brought on to the
• Construction has begun with site work and underground utilities underway. We will see.
• And so we were able to fully utilize those funds.

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum present and approved the March 18 minutes. The committee first heard an update from the Petroleum Council on oil and gas activity, which described North Dakota production as holding steady around 1.1 to 1.2 million barrels per day despite lower prices and market volatility. The presentation emphasized that efficiency gains, longer laterals, and improved completion technology are allowing operators to sustain output while activity shifts north in the Bakken. Members asked about gas taxation, natural gas liquids, flaring, and enhanced oil recovery; the witness said gas is taxed by volume, most liquids are handled through oil lines or gas processing, and the state’s EOR pilot projects and new gas infrastructure are intended to help hold production flat and expand future recovery. The committee then received a presentation from the Tax Department on the federal “big beautiful bill” and its effect on North Dakota income tax collections. The department explained that most of the federal changes were extensions of existing Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions, but several items — including the larger standard deduction, senior deduction, tip and overtime exclusions, auto loan interest deduction, and business expensing changes — affect state collections. Revised estimates showed a smaller-than-expected impact on individual income tax, with the department suggesting a net cash effect in the range of roughly $30 million to $35 million when business and individual effects are combined, plus a possible one-time distortion from large oil-field transactions in fiscal year 2025. Members asked which provisions apply to standard versus itemized returns, and the department clarified that most of the individual provisions apply broadly, while the SALT-related item is itemizer-specific. OMB then reported on major capital projects and facility funding. Updates included Capitol grounds improvements such as 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding, augmented reality displays for the Rough Rider Hall of Fame, tree management and lighting studies, and restroom and parking reconfiguration in the tower. OMB also described security upgrades at the governor’s residence, where human remains were discovered on site and are being handled with historical and legal review. The state hospital project in Jamestown remains on schedule for substantial completion in winter 2027 and opening in spring 2028, with costs currently estimated a little over $292 million and a line of credit expected to be drawn in April 2027. The North Central State Office Building in Minot is under construction, with a $5.6 million line of credit already accessed. OMB also reported on the State Facility Maintenance Fund, noting about $1.1 million spent so far on projects such as the Liberty Memorial Building roof and foundation work, Capitol window replacement, boiler replacement, and kitchen remodeling. Finally, Legislative Council staff reviewed the interim compliance report on legislative intent and state trust funds. The report highlighted the status of multiple lines of credit, including those for the state hospital and Minot office building, and noted that the executive budget will likely need to include repayment planning for about $350 million of expected outstanding balances. Other updates included the Bank of North Dakota profit transfer schedule, litigation pool spending, the new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, the Missouri River Correctional Center planning effort, HHS items such as FMAP and child care assistance, Job Service’s unemployment insurance modernization project, and DPI school aid turnback estimates. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:30:44.480> customers end up costing utility customers end up costing utility customers
• of a big Mega plant being constructed of a big Mega plant being constructed but<00:31:41.080>
• Municipal Utilities Municipal Utilities Association<00:35:42.800> I<00:35:42.960> hope
• <00:36:14.200> and will make sense for our utilities and will make sense for our utilities
• > through<00:36:15.599> their our utilities that work through their our utilities that

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Energy Finance and Policy Committee met to approve the January 16 minutes and then heard House File 9, which was referred to the Committee on Taxes after the committee’s action. The bill was presented as an energy policy measure aimed at reliability and affordability. It would expand hydroelectric power’s eligibility under the state’s energy standard, delay certain carbon-free compliance requirements for utilities that do not meet a retail rate benchmark, prohibit local permits to demolish fossil fuel plants under certain conditions, state support for carbon capture and sequestration without creating a state funding obligation, end the nuclear moratorium, and expand the sales tax exemption for residential natural gas and electricity used as primary heat year-round starting after June 30, 2026. The committee also took up and adopted the A1 author’s amendment, which clarified that the carbon capture language does not obligate state spending. The bill’s sponsor argued that Minnesota’s current energy policy is driving up costs and threatening reliability, especially during extreme cold, and said the bill would create “off-ramps” from existing mandates to protect ratepayers and businesses. He cited reliability concerns, MISO/NERC risk assessments, rising utility rates, and the need for an all-of-the-above energy approach, including hydro and nuclear. He also said the bill would reduce taxes by broadening the sales tax exemption for residential heating. Testimony was mixed but generally focused on reliability, affordability, and the role of nuclear power. The Minnesota Rural Electric Association and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce supported the bill’s emphasis on keeping power reliable and affordable, with both saying Minnesota needs dispatchable, carbon-free resources and noting concerns about high electricity costs and future demand from data centers and AI. The Prairie Island Indian Community opposed lifting the nuclear moratorium without a viable waste solution, describing the long-term burden of spent nuclear fuel on its community and asking for more consultation. Xcel Energy said its nuclear plants have operated safely and reliably for decades, support low-cost and low-carbon power, and could be part of the state’s energy transition, but it emphasized the need for tribal participation and said decisions about retiring fossil plants should remain within the existing Public Utilities Commission resource planning process.

Transcript Highlights:

• to construction by December of 2024.
• But when we talk about pre-construction, we talk about, you know, you have to. to be ready to go to construction
• By all pre-construction, which includes all pre-construction permits, which are the Caltrans permits.
• No, the goal was to complete all pre-construction prior to December and to be able to go to construction
• So, so we were at 62% just as of December 30 on pre-construction on pre-construction.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In recent years, California builders have experienced significant utility delays associated with utility
• Legacy homes is the same impact as driving 10 years of net zero new construction.
• Shorter approval periods mean reduced construction costs and getting homes online faster.
• It's called the California Utility Allowance Calculator.
• And, you know, we don't want to wait decades for construction.

Summary: The Assembly Select Committee on Regulatory Authority held its first hearing to examine how California’s regulatory framework affects housing production, affordability, and timelines. Chair Pacheco and Assemblymember Haney framed the discussion around the state’s housing shortage and the need to reduce costs while maintaining environmental, safety, and community protections. The first panel featured housing experts and industry representatives who argued that state regulations, code complexity, utility constraints, and agency review processes add substantial cost and delay to development. Bill Fulton described overlapping state and local land-use authorities and the tension among housing, coastal protection, climate, and wildfire goals. CBIA’s Chris Ochoa and California Apartment Association representative Bob Raymer said building codes, energy mandates, and agency processes have materially increased per-home costs, and they urged more centralized affordability analysis and greater scrutiny of regulatory impacts. The Bay Area Council’s Louis Marante called for a statewide cost target for housing and stronger timelines and accountability for state agency reviews. The second panel brought in state agencies to explain their roles. HCD said its housing element enforcement, streamlining laws, and technical assistance have helped increase production, shorten entitlement timelines, and improve compliance by local governments. CARB said SB 375 is a planning law that does not directly regulate land use, and argued that regional housing assumptions in sustainable communities strategies are not being fully implemented on the ground. The Coastal Commission said it works with local governments to balance coastal protection, sea-level-rise risk, and housing, and noted recent guidance and pilot efforts to streamline housing approvals in the coastal zone. The Energy Commission said its building energy standards are designed to be cost-effective and save consumers money over time, though they can add some design and documentation complexity. Fish and Wildlife and DTSC both emphasized early engagement and collaboration to reduce delays while protecting natural resources and public health; DTSC said it is refining vapor intrusion guidance and using brownfield grants to support redevelopment. The State Water Resources Control Board said it uses general orders and basin planning to provide predictable permitting while balancing water quality, water rights, and housing needs, and noted billions in grants and loans for water infrastructure and site remediation that can support housing affordability. In response to questions from Assemblymember Haney, several agencies described ongoing coordination across departments, including regular meetings among HCD, CARB, the Coastal Commission, and transportation agencies, as well as broader interagency efforts to reduce redundancies and identify pinch points in project delivery. No formal votes or legislative actions were taken during the hearing; the main outcome was informational testimony and discussion of possible future reforms to improve coordination, predictability, and affordability in state regulatory processes.

Transcript Highlights:

• six years past, and they're able to allow water withdrawn from the aquifer to be used to provide utilities
• The language... ...regards municipally owned utilities, and there was an issue in Garland in which they
• The purpose of the bill was to allow municipally owned utilities (MOUs) and cooperatives to issue the
• This bill allows certain commissions to also utilize online message boards under the Texas Open Meetings

Bills: SJR27, SB7, SB27, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1494, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2121, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2373, SB2407, SB2431, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB21, SB30, SB37, SB260, SB268, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB509, SB568, SB650, SB763, SB1198, SB1405, SB1506, SB1540, SB1566, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB1833, SB2018, SB2024, SB2155, SB2217, SB2308, SB2337, SB2601, SB2753, SB2778, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB145, HB300, HB493, HB2011, HB2067, HB2516, HB2525, HB2885, HB2974, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB5138, HB5246, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, 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, SR695, SCR54, HCR153, HCR166, HCR168, SJR27, SB7, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2407, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, HB40, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, SB17, SB21, SB509, SB1198, SB1506, SB1833, SB2155, SB2601, SB2778, HB300, HB2011

Keywords: judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, constitutional amendment, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, school safety, emergency operations plan, multihazard plan, mandatory drill, disaster preparedness, emergency response, students with disabilities, impairments, special education, Section 504

Bills: SJR27, SB7, SB27, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1494, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2121, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2373, SB2407, SB2431, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB21, SB30, SB37, SB260, SB268, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB509, SB568, SB650, SB763, SB1198, SB1405, SB1506, SB1540, SB1566, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB1833, SB2018, SB2024, SB2155, SB2217, SB2308, SB2337, SB2601, SB2753, SB2778, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB145, HB300, HB493, HB2011, HB2067, HB2516, HB2525, HB2885, HB2974, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB5138, HB5246, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, 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, SR695, SCR54, HCR153, HCR166, HCR168, SJR27, SB7, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2407, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, HB40, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, SB17, SB21, SB509, SB1198, SB1506, SB1833, SB2155, SB2601, SB2778, HB300, HB2011

Keywords: judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, constitutional amendment, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, school safety, emergency operations plan, multihazard plan, mandatory drill, disaster preparedness, emergency response, students with disabilities, impairments, special education, Section 504

Bills: SJR27, SB7, SB27, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1494, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2121, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2373, SB2407, SB2431, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB21, SB30, SB37, SB260, SB268, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB509, SB568, SB650, SB763, SB1198, SB1405, SB1506, SB1540, SB1566, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB1833, SB2018, SB2024, SB2155, SB2217, SB2308, SB2337, SB2601, SB2753, SB2778, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB145, HB300, HB493, HB2011, HB2067, HB2516, HB2525, HB2885, HB2974, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB5138, HB5246, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, 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, SR695, SCR54, HCR153, HCR166, HCR168, SJR27, SB7, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2407, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, HB40, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, SB17, SB21, SB509, SB1198, SB1506, SB1833, SB2155, SB2601, SB2778, HB300, HB2011

Keywords: judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, constitutional amendment, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, school safety, emergency operations plan, multihazard plan, mandatory drill, disaster preparedness, emergency response, students with disabilities, impairments, special education, Section 504

Bills: SJR27, SB7, SB27, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1494, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2121, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2373, SB2407, SB2431, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, SB1, SB8, SB12, SB13, SB15, SB17, SB21, SB30, SB37, SB260, SB268, SB331, SB379, SB441, SB447, SB457, SB509, SB568, SB650, SB763, SB1198, SB1405, SB1506, SB1540, SB1566, SB1610, SB1637, SB1660, SB1833, SB2018, SB2024, SB2155, SB2217, SB2308, SB2337, SB2601, SB2753, SB2778, SB2878, SB2900, SB2972, SB3059, HB4, HB145, HB300, HB493, HB2011, HB2067, HB2516, HB2525, HB2885, HB2974, HB3071, HB3372, HB3556, HB3595, HB5138, HB5246, HB40, HB46, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, 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, SR695, SCR54, HCR153, HCR166, HCR168, SJR27, SB7, SB57, SB66, SB140, SB293, SB413, SB437, SB467, SB506, SB510, SB512, SB571, SB710, SB785, SB800, SB850, SB863, SB865, SB904, SB905, SB973, SB974, SB1191, SB1281, SB1300, SB1362, SB1504, SB1522, SB1567, SB1579, SB1580, SB1723, SB1760, SB1838, SB1923, SB1946, SB1957, SB1964, SB2167, SB2221, SB2321, SB2368, SB2407, SB2477, SB2587, SB2615, SB2807, SB2965, SB2986, SB3039, SB3047, SB3070, HB40, HB119, HB705, HB1545, HB2017, HB2963, HB3642, HB3909, SB17, SB21, SB509, SB1198, SB1506, SB1833, SB2155, SB2601, SB2778, HB300, HB2011

Keywords: judicial conduct, state commission, judicial misconduct, commission membership, constitutional amendment, water infrastructure, financial assistance, Texas Water Development Board, water supply, environmental sustainability, school safety, emergency operations plan, multihazard plan, mandatory drill, disaster preparedness, emergency response, students with disabilities, impairments, special education, Section 504

Transcript Highlights:

• still a rookie in the in the utility still a rookie in the in the utility industry,<00:02:46.080
• They start calling other utilities.
• Um they will require a lot of construction and construction traffic.
• Um they will require a lot of construction and construction traffic.
• Um they will require a lot of construction and construction traffic.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Artificial Intelligence Task Force held its third meeting and adopted the prior minutes after a motion and second. The main presentation came from John Bevington of LG&E and KU, who described the utility’s Kentucky service territory, its vertically integrated operations, and its role in economic development. He said the company supported 76 projects in 2024, representing about $3 billion in announced investment and roughly 3,000 jobs, and noted that about 45% of statewide investment announcements were in its service area. He also outlined a large project pipeline of about 8.5 gigawatts, with data centers making up roughly two-thirds of that interest. Bevington explained that data center siting differs from traditional manufacturing site selection because it is driven primarily by transmission access and grid capacity rather than a process of eliminating locations. He said large data centers must locate near transmission lines, that utilities must conduct formal studies to ensure existing customers are not harmed, and that the buildout timeline for utility infrastructure is much longer than for data centers. He cited a Deloitte study and other industry data to argue that power constraints and timeline mismatches are the biggest challenges, while also emphasizing that data centers can generate significant construction activity, indirect jobs, and tax revenue. He said Kentucky’s sales tax exemption for data centers was a key enabler that increased interest in the state. Members asked about the number and size of potential data center projects, how Kentucky compares with other states, and whether regulatory reform is needed. Bevington said the 20 projects in Kentucky reflect current interest, that other states such as Ohio have had similar incentives for years, and that Kentucky is still early in the market. He also said data centers can vary in size, from 200 to 600 megawatts or more, and that they can be located anywhere with sufficient transmission capacity and, in some cases, access to workforce and roads. In response to concerns about energy supply, he said LG&E and KU are pursuing an “all of the above” strategy, including solar, batteries, and new natural gas combined-cycle units, and noted ongoing and proposed projects totaling additional capacity if approved by the Public Service Commission.

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh $54 construction money for that.
• capital project request is to construct capital project request is to construct a<00:45:49.520><
• We look at space utilization data.
• We look at space utilization data.
• We look at space utilization data.

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:

• If you're utilizing it from a coal plant, you get it for 10 years.
• Our statewide construction manager.
• Remains have been located there before in past construction projects.
• This facility will be constructed as a pre- This facility will be constructed as a pre-engineered metal
• Construction has begun, with site work and underground utilities underway. We will see.

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum and approved the March 18 minutes before hearing a series of informational updates. The Petroleum Council reported that North Dakota oil production is expected to remain relatively flat at just under 1.2 million barrels per day, with activity shifting northward in the Bakken as technology improves and three- and four-mile laterals boost well performance. The presentation also discussed oil and gas prices, gas taxation, flaring concerns, the importance of pipelines and other linear infrastructure, and enhanced oil recovery pilot projects supported by state and federal funding. Members asked questions about gas production taxes, natural gas liquids, and the outlook for drilling rigs and future production. The Office of State Tax Commissioner then reviewed the federal “big beautiful bill” and its estimated effect on North Dakota individual and business income tax collections. Staff explained that most of the individual income tax impact comes from the permanent increase in the standard deduction, while temporary provisions such as senior deductions, tip and overtime exclusions, and auto loan interest deductions have smaller or limited-term effects. They also noted that business tax changes, especially depreciation and expensing provisions, create a larger near-term cash impact, and that some FY25 collections likely reflected one-time oil field transactions that may have inflated the baseline used in earlier estimates. OMB provided updates on major capital projects and facility funding. For Capitol grounds improvements, officials described plans for 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding upgrades, public seating, lighting, tree management, and possible restroom and lobby reconfiguration, while also noting the governor’s residence security project and the discovery of human remains on the Capitol grounds. OMB and its consultants also reported on the state facility maintenance fund, including window replacement, boiler work, roof and foundation repairs, and a new facility conditions assessment covering more state buildings. Updates were also given on the new state hospital in Jamestown, the Minot state office building, and the use of federal state fiscal recovery funds, including possible future reallocations to the Department of Corrections. Finally, Legislative Council staff summarized the interim compliance report on legislative intent and trust fund activity, highlighting the status of lines of credit, Bank of North Dakota profit transfers, the statewide litigation pool, the new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, corrections planning, HHS program updates, and a likely future general fund request for the unemployment insurance modernization project. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes; the meeting was primarily informational, with members asking clarifying questions throughout.

Transcript Highlights:

• Those are investor-owned utilities, municipal utilities, as well as cooperatives.
• are investorowned utilities, municipal are investorowned utilities, municipal utilities<01:02:38.640
• Commissioner Jay Lutz Austin utilities. Commissioner Jay Lutz Austin utilities.
• <01:07:37.760> I for Austin Public Utilities. I for Austin Public Utilities.
• utilities can partner with other<01:08:54.159> municipal<01:08:54.799> utilities<01:08

Bills: HF1669, HF4709, HF3531, HF4048

Keywords: tax credits, sustainable aviation fuel, environmental policy, corporate franchise, Minnesota taxation, electricity generation, property tax exemption, renewable energy, incentives, economic development, fuel delivery, tax exemption, retail transactions, diesel exhaust fluid, fuel lubricants, healthcare tax, gross receipts tax, hospitals, chiropractors, healthcare providers

Transcript Highlights:

• , pool project is under construction, pool project is under construction, which<00:20:33.760>
• <00:25:09.840> construction awarded with construction construction awarded with construction
• . construction. construction.
• Of the construction is underway.
• We need money for construction."

Keywords: 00:02 Call to Order and Roll Call 01:44 Approval of Minutes 01:56 Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet 54:59 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The House Budget Review Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Protection, Tourism, and Energy received an update from Kentucky State Parks and the Finance Cabinet on the status of major capital projects funded through recent legislative appropriations. Commissioner Mark Keelin, Deputy Commissioner Chris Perry, and Finance Cabinet/DECA representatives described progress on campground upgrades, utility and broadband improvements, building systems repairs, life-safety work, accommodations and hospitality renovations, pool and beach projects, playgrounds, golf course improvements, marina work, and wastewater upgrades across the state park system. They emphasized that Kentucky has 44 state parks and that the funding has supported completed work and projects still under construction or in design. The presentation highlighted funding tied to House Joint Resolution 76, House Joint Resolution 56, and House Bill 6. Parks reported roughly $72 million invested to date, with 66 projects completed and 17 under construction, including campground renovations at sites such as My Old Kentucky Home, Kin Lake, Carter Caves, Cumberland Falls, and others; broadband projects at several campgrounds; electrical grid resilience work at parks including Kentucky Dam Village and Kin Lake; and completed life-safety upgrades such as lock systems. Officials also noted pool and beach work, ADA improvements, lodge and guest room renovations, marina replacements, and wastewater plant upgrades. DECA said it currently manages 1,335 active capital projects statewide, including 149 for Parks, and credited additional project management capacity and regular coordination meetings for accelerating delivery. Committee members asked for a copy of the presentation and pressed the department for more detailed accounting of House Joint Resolution 56, including how much money remains, which projects are complete, and whether current appropriations are sufficient to finish the listed work. The department also requested a larger maintenance pool appropriation of $40 million for the next budget, arguing that routine and emergency maintenance needs across 44 parks exceed current resources and that preventative maintenance would reduce long-term costs. No votes were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Construction.
• But construction has not started on this one.
• The big one for us is utilities.
• large utilities, not necessarily the utilities provided by counties.
• large utilities, not necessarily the utilities provided by counties.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 heard an update from the California High-Speed Rail Authority on its 2026 draft business plan and related budget proposals. The Authority said work in the Central Valley is advancing, with 59 of 92 major structures complete, 80 of 119 miles under construction finished, utility relocations 93% complete, and track-laying expected to begin later this year. It said the revised plan targets completion of the Merced-to-Bakersfield early operating segment in 2032-33, and it highlighted a new strategy focused on ancillary revenues, public-private partnerships, and possible value-capture tools such as real estate, energy, broadband, logistics, and tax increment financing. The Authority also asked for reappropriation of $423 million in Prop 1A funds for the Link Union Station project and $246 million in federal trust funds to avoid expiration. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said it had no specific concerns with the two budget change proposals but raised broader concerns about the draft business plan and the project’s finances. LAO said the plan appears to assume optimistic cost savings, immediate approval of major statutory changes, and reliable future cap-and-invest revenues, while actual funding may be insufficient even for the revised Central Valley segment once borrowing costs are included. LAO also said the draft business plan was missing several required elements identified by the Office of the Inspector General, and it suggested the Legislature could wait until the plan is finalized before acting. Department of Finance had no additional comment. Members questioned the Authority about whether all proposed financing and policy changes are necessary, how tax increment financing would affect local governments and school districts, and what authority the Authority has to enter public-private partnerships without further legislative approval. The Authority said utility relocation authority is its top legislative priority, that value capture is a longer-term tool not needed to complete Merced-to-Bakersfield, and that any state backstop beyond the current $20 billion commitment would require returning to the Legislature. It said a private partner is expected to be selected around June 1, with more detailed financing analysis to follow over six to eight months. Public testimony was split: labor groups and project supporters backed the budget request and urged action on utility relocation and job creation, while local government and special district representatives strongly opposed tax increment financing and related land-use proposals without local consent. The hearing ended with no vote taken and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an additional construction funding request.
• You have Lucas Adamillo of Bradbury STEM Construction and Philip Erickson of Bradbury STEM Construction
• to school construction.
• Typically, those are utilization rates we see at the elementary school levels because utilization rates
• You get a high utilization rate.

Transcript Highlights:

• So we did update the construction sequencing. ...industry capacity, so we did update the construction
• There's managing the tolling system during construction, you know, there's utilities and stormwater management
• Utilizing those requirements allows us to be...
• And so we continue to utilize this portal.
• We have this all constructed this way.

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.