Transcript Highlights:

• fees are such a large percentage. fees are such a large percentage.
• We traditionally ask the utilities and the engineers what makes the fee not fit the fee schedule and
• So the fee schedule ranges.
• Projects that are smaller would have a higher fee percentage, an engineering allowable fee percentage
• Um so the fee explanation.

Keywords: 00:05 Call to Order and Roll Call 00:34 Approval of Minutes 00:56 Information Items 05:40 Project Rpt from Postsecondary Institutions 14:00 Project Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 20:40 Lease Rpt from Finance and Administration Cabinet 24:53 Rpt from OFM – Ky Infrastructure Authority 40:38 Office of Financial Management 47:39 Remaining 2025 Meeting Dates 48:05 Adjournment, 958, all

Summary: The meeting began with routine business, including a quorum call, approval of the April minutes, and several informational reports. Those information items covered upcoming general obligation debt for Bullitt, Jefferson, and Warren counties; Kentucky Communications Network Authority updates tied to House Bill 6; Eastern Kentucky University asset preservation reallocations under House Bill 1; and School Facilities Construction Commission debt activity, including 20 prior debt issues totaling about $386 million with roughly 85% locally supported debt service and 15% SFCC participation. Members then discussed concerns about a Kentucky Communications Network Authority project, focusing on a reported discrepancy between an appropriation of $12.927 million and an apparent payment of about $8.532 million on a project with a cost estimate of $12.449 million. Several members asked for more detailed written information before the next Capital Projects meeting, noting that a lawsuit is pending and that they wanted to better understand the basis for the request and the spending to date. The committee also heard and unanimously approved a donor-funded Northern Kentucky University project to renovate tennis courts, with possible pickleball additions, after questions about why approval was needed, the project’s estimated $3 million cost, and its expected minimal ongoing operating costs. The committee next received Kentucky State University pool allocation reports for three projects: a $2 million McCullen Hall renovation, a $1.75 million walkway and miscellaneous repairs project, and a $2 million academic services building roof-and-window project. A member asked specifically about curb cuts and accessibility in the walkway project, and Kentucky State said existing curb cuts would be repaired and additional accessibility issues would be reviewed by engineers. The lease report from the Finance and Administration Cabinet included one lease modification requiring approval for the Attorney General’s office in Franklin County and one no-action modification for the Board of Cosmetology; the Attorney General lease was approved by roll call vote. Finally, the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority presented five loans and 37 grants, with action taken on the loan and grant items. The loans included a Hodgenville wastewater treatment plant increase, a Grant County sewer district treatment plant loan, a Mount Sterling dam rehabilitation loan, and two Morganfield drinking water loans for granular activated carbon treatment, one with full principal forgiveness. Members asked about the Morganfield project’s purpose and were told it was a remediation effort for a water-quality concern, and they also raised questions about engineering fees, which KIA said are compared against a U.S. Rural Development fee schedule that is industry accepted. The committee also reviewed cleaner water program grant reallocations from county allocation pools.

Transcript Highlights:

• The city already picks it up; we already pay a fee.
• This talks about a lot of fees and recycling and managing.
• when we're already paying a fee and they're already dealing with the waste.
• It could be a fee just for recycling or it could be an increased fee for all that new equipment that
• We're going to charge an extra fee.' Is that kind of along the lines?

Bills: SB2106, SB1471, SB2139, SB2154, SB1619

Keywords: zoning, municipal compensation, property rights, financial impact, reversion ordinance, solid waste management, municipal authority, regulatory fees, waste reduction, environmental impact, restrictive covenants, discriminatory covenants, racially restrictive covenants, housing discrimination, Fair Housing Act, plats, subdivision plats, residential additions, county clerk, municipal ordinance

Transcript Highlights:

• But the bill also removes an existing 4,000-ton cap on calculating emission fees.
• But the bill also removes an existing 4,000-ton cap on calculating emission fees.
• The bill also removes an existing 4,000-ton cap on calculating emission fees.
• You don't have to pay emissions fees on them.
• You don't have to pay emissions fees on them.

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00 Attendance Roll Call 00:12 Introduction of Guests 01:09 HB 88 Discussion 01:46 HB 88 Roll Call Vote 03:24 HB 346 Discussion 04:20 HB 346 Roll Call Vote 21:58 Chair Comments 24:31, 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 88, which was described as a short bill to clarify procedures for Waste Management boards, including term limits, appointments, and making sure consolidated governments actively recruit community members and make openings easier to find. The sponsor said the bill was intended to resolve confusion about members staying on after terms expire. The bill received no opposition, passed the committee unanimously, and was reported favorably for the floor. The committee then took up House Bill 346, as amended by a committee substitute. The sponsor explained that the bill responds to a dispute over air emission fees, especially for emergency generators and backup generators used for worker safety and limited non-emergency testing. The bill would exempt emergency generators and backup generators operating 100 hours or less for maintenance/testing from fees, while also removing an existing 4,000-ton cap so the per-ton fee would drop for most permitted sources. Members discussed the possible impact on utilities and ratepayers, with concerns raised that costs could be passed through to consumers and affect coal-dependent areas. The sponsor and another member argued the change would generally reduce fees for most sources and incentivize emissions reductions; the cabinet was described as neutral, and the affected utilities were identified as TVA, LG&E, East Kentucky Power, and Big Rivers, with only TVA having raised comments. The committee substitute was adopted, and the bill passed the committee with a favorable recommendation, though one member voted no and several members explained yes votes while expressing ongoing concerns about future rate impacts. At the end of the meeting, members briefly discussed broader concerns about utility surcharges and the need to monitor the effects of legislation on ratepayers, but those comments were not part of the bill under consideration. The chair noted that future meetings may include more bills and could start earlier if needed, and the committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• these veterans... ...ensures fees for helping these veterans are one-time fees and that the fees are
• So the only thing that is prohibited by this fee model would be an upfront fee.
• and upfront fees, right?
• Only require hourly or flat fees charged on the back end? Upfront fees, right?
• than contingent fee.

Bills: SB1003, SB1060, SB1134, SB1275, SB1327, SB1429, SB1618, SB1634, SB1654, SB1803, SCR1002, SCR1005, SCR1023, SCR1027

Keywords: election, canvass, certification, ballot tabulation, write-in candidates, registration, voting procedures, voter registration, temporary absence, absentee voting, residency, military voters, overseas voters, election law, Arizona Revised Statutes, political signs, campaign materials, public safety, municipal regulation, veterans

Summary: The committee first heard a lengthy presentation and discussion focused on Arizona State University’s foreign research ties, especially collaborations and funding connected to China and Chinese military-affiliated institutions. The presenter argued that ASU and the Arizona Board of Regents had not been transparent about foreign gifts, contracts, and research partnerships, citing federal reporting forms, the Wolf Amendment, export-control concerns, and alleged links to dual-use technologies such as quantum systems, AI, robotics, microelectronics, and biosecurity. A witness from American Global Strategies testified in support, saying the bill would help protect U.S. research security and national security by imposing state-level guardrails on sensitive collaborations. After questions, the committee considered a strike-everything amendment to SB 1060 that would bar public universities from entering into or continuing certain loans, gifts, contracts, research partnerships, or sponsored projects involving the PRC, the CCP, and listed Chinese military-linked universities, require ABOR review and approval, and impose reporting and budget penalties. The amendment was withdrawn, and the committee instead took up SB 1327, which directs ABOR to require university research security policies and to report annually on those policies and on foreign contributions over $250,000; SB 1327 received a 4-2 do-pass recommendation, with Del Santos, Hernandez, and Márquez voting no and Kolodin, Powell, Keshel, and Gillette voting yes. The committee then heard SB 1803, a veterans bill regulating unrecognized persons who assist with VA disability claims. The sponsor and industry witnesses said the bill would protect veterans from bad actors by requiring disclosures, capping fees, banning certain practices, and filing service agreements with the Attorney General, while opponents argued it could restrict consumer choice, resemble a price ceiling, and still allow non-attorneys to engage in the unauthorized practice of law. After extensive debate over contingent fees, legal ethics, and whether the bill was too favorable to one company, the committee continued the hearing with additional testimony and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• “And CCRC is also charged an entrance fee. This is very key to the definition of a CCRC.
• And that entrance fee is separate and distinct from any other fees.
• times such periodic fees, shall be considered as constituting an entrance fee.”
• “Such periodic fees shall be considered as constituting an entrance fee.
• of entrance fees within CCRCs as well.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The meeting was the introductory session of the new Commission on Aging and Independence focused on continuing care retirement communities (CCRCs). Co-chairs Senator Pat Jehlen and committee staff introduced the commission’s purpose, and members and stakeholders from AARP Massachusetts, the Executive Office of Aging and Independence, LeadingAge Massachusetts, SEIU Local 1199, the Alzheimer’s Association, and the Attorney General’s office briefly introduced themselves and described their interests. Several participants emphasized the value of CCRCs for aging in place, while also noting concerns about affordability, accessibility, resident rights, dementia supports, and the need for clearer complaint and oversight processes. The commission reviewed the basic definition of a CCRC, including the requirement for housing plus health-related services, a life contract, and an entrance fee, and discussed how Massachusetts law defines entrance fees and their return. Staff explained that the commission was created by Chapter 197 of the Acts of 2024 and is charged with studying CCRC contracts, consumer impacts, financial viability, entrance fees, oversight and enforcement, advertising practices, and procedures for closure or change of ownership. The commission also outlined its deadline to submit recommendations by August 1, 2025. Because quorum issues and technical problems limited the session, no substantive votes were taken. Instead, the meeting focused on logistics: members will receive a survey to suggest priorities, site visits, and outside presenters; the group plans monthly meetings with two in June; and a public hearing may be held earlier in the process so feedback can shape the agenda. Staff also noted that ethics training for members was still being arranged.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, again, this turns it from a tax on everybody to an individual user fee.
• garbage, and you're paying tipping fees garbage, and you're paying tipping fees on<00:10:02.240>
• If you buy paint, individual user fee.
• So it makes more sense to have a recycling fee for people that bring it there.
• I have no problem with charging a fee to I have no problem with charging a fee to recycle<00:12:18.560

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A lot of the new fees we're hearing about is a fee to pay by check instead of automatic withdrawal, fees
• <00:25:34.200> fees.
• called the fall fee.
• start the fall fee is a good example. start the fall fee is a good example.
• There are separate fees.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• When we collect too much fees, then we fee holiday and it falls back and we start again.
• When we collect too much fees, then we fee holiday and it falls back and we start again.
• >> Fees. Yeah, there is a cap.
• $6 million a year in participant fees. $6 million a year in participant fees.
• different fees. different fees.

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00:35 Attendance Roll Call: 00:00:55 Approval of Minutes: 00:02:56 Deferred Compensation Authority Update: 00:03:12 Retiree Health Update - TRS: 00:15:58 Retiree Health Update - KPPA: 00:56:13 Adjournment: 01:08:10, 958, all

Summary: The Public Pension Oversight Board met with a quorum, approved the prior minutes, and heard updates from the Kentucky Public Employees Deferred Compensation Authority and the Teachers Retirement System. The deferred compensation update highlighted continued growth in assets to about $4.787 billion and roughly 88,000 participants, strong retention from auto-enrollment, a marketing campaign tied to pay raises that generated additional participation, and a new self-directed brokerage account expected to launch July 1 of the coming year for participants with at least a $40,000 balance, allowing up to 25% of their account to be moved into the brokerage window. The director also described the free financial planning service, which has been used by about 3,500 participants with a high return rate, and said the plan is currently in a fee holiday; if fees are charged, they are capped at $237 per year for most participants. Members asked questions about who provides the CFP service, the fee structure, and the brokerage eligibility threshold. The director said the CFP service is provided through the authority’s service bundle with Nationwide, not as a separate paid service, and explained that the fee cap and current fee holiday are intended to keep the program low-cost. Board members praised the deferred compensation program’s performance and asked for a copy of the legislation referenced in the presentation. TRS then presented on retired teachers’ health insurance. Barnes first clarified how declining federal contributions for federally funded school positions affect the retirement annuity trust, explaining that if those federal dollars fall, the amounts would need to be covered through the SEEK formula and that the projection for those contributions is about $80 million over the next three years. He then reviewed TRS retiree health coverage, distinguishing between KEHP for retirees under 65 or not Medicare-eligible and MEHP for Medicare-eligible retirees, and explained that TRS recently completed RFPs for both prescription drug and medical coverage. TRS will keep Express Scripts for prescription drugs, but will move the Medicare Advantage medical plan from UnitedHealthcare to Humana on January 1, 2026, while keeping the plan design, provider access, and out-of-pocket structure largely unchanged, with a new hearing-aid benefit of $500 per ear. Barnes also reported the 2026 premium and contribution changes: the maximum TRS contribution toward KEHP will rise to $1,144.96 from $930.76, an 18% increase that he said will require roughly $15 million to $16 million more in the state budget, while the MEHP premium will drop to $200 per month from $210. He said the TRS board has statutory authority to set these amounts and that the changes will have mixed actuarial effects, with the KEHP increase being negative overall and the MEHP decrease positive.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a great question, and the award... ...attorney's fees.
• So the law recognizes that you can get your attorney's fees back to be made whole.
• In some cases, like in the insurance code, attorney's fees are awarded as a penalty.
• And then what are the fees that you're going to be asking for?
• At the end of the day, attorney's fees can be substantial.

Bills: SB38, SB287, SB291, SB292, SB508, SB618, SB901, SB1436, SB1494, SB1626, SB1719, SB1999, SB1333, SB 38

Keywords: evictions, property law, tenant rights, landlord responsibilities, justice court, court rules, SB 287, Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, sexually oriented business, adult entertainment, strip club, nude entertainment, live nude performance, alcohol prohibition, alcohol consumption, possession of alcohol, criminal offense, Class A misdemeanor, state jail felony, third degree felony

Transcript Highlights:

• fee-based program.
• In our fee process to develop the fees, we are looking at both application fees and annual fees if the
• Looking at the scale of fees, Arizona, Colorado, and Utah charge the highest permit fees to municipal
• There is considerable diversity among states in the fee schedule; some have flat fees while others use
• Fees.

Transcript Highlights:

• component of the school impact fee, but retain the land impact fee requirement and the in-lieu fee requirement
• component of the school construction fee component of the school impact<00:02:00.119> fee<00:
• requirement and the inl fee contribution requirement and the inl fee remove<00:02:06.200> all
• construction cost component impact fee construction cost component impact fee and<00:02:09.800><
• Um, okay, because when the counties approved development fees and it has to do with development fees

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 422, relating to school impact fees. The Education Committee recommended passage with amendments, and Ways and Means concurred. The amendments would repeal the construction fee component of the school impact fee while retaining the land impact fee and in-lieu fee requirements, remove related statutory language, exempt certain developments from school impact fees, raise the unit threshold for satisfying the land component to 100 units, require the School Facilities Authority to adopt rules and policies, and require a report to the Legislature on the effect of repealing the construction portion of the fee. The measure was also given a sunset date of June 30, 2029, with the committee report to note that the changes are intended to test the efficiency and efficacy of the fee structure and could be made permanent if the report supports that outcome. The committees adopted the recommendation, with one senator initially voting no and then changing to yes after the amendments were explained. The meeting also included a separate hearing on House Bill 1155, concerning procurement for Department of Transportation projects and construction manager/general contractor procurement. DOT testified that it supported the concept but wanted to narrow the bill, saying the current language was too broad and that the goal was to allow more innovative procurement while preserving selection safeguards. The State Procurement Office said it supported the bill’s language but was willing to work with DOT on alternative wording. Several construction-related organizations, including subcontractors, iron workers, elevator constructors, and building trades representatives, opposed the bill, arguing that exemptions from the procurement code would weaken protections such as retainage, equality, and prompt payment and could invite favoritism or corruption. In response to those concerns, the chair proposed amendments limiting the exemption to DOT, narrowing the qualifying contracts, adding a two-year sunset, requiring a report after the first year, and clarifying that project management could not be procured under the section. The amended recommendation passed, though several members voted with reservations. A separate item, House Bill 476, was briefly called up at the end of the agenda, with a recommendation to pass with amendments to increase a rate from 7.25% to 8%, but discussion was not completed in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• appropriated and comes from the fees appropriated and comes from the fees based<00:26:11.760>
• permit fees, hazardous waste fees are $7 million, water quality fees are $4.4 million, and pollution
• prevention fees are $2.8 million.
• <00:30:25.159> main fees uh those in FY 24 the main fee main fees uh those in FY 24 the main
• fees hazardous waste fees are 7 million water<00:30:52.399> quality<00:30:52.760> fees<

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for an organizational hearing of the Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee. Members and staff introduced themselves, with several legislators noting their backgrounds in farming, mining, water management, and outdoor recreation, and the chair reviewed draft committee rules emphasizing decorum, quorum, timely starts, and submitting bill hearing requests to the committee administrator. The committee also heard from nonpartisan staff and caucus staff who will support the committee this session. House Research and House Fiscal staff then provided an overview of the committee’s jurisdiction and the major agencies and programs it oversees. The presentation covered the Department of Natural Resources, Pollution Control Agency, Environmental Quality Board, Board of Water and Soil Resources, Metropolitan Council regional parks and water resources, Conservation Corps of Minnesota, Minnesota Zoological Board, Science Museum of Minnesota, and the Legislative-Citizen Commission on Minnesota Resources. Staff summarized the main statutory chapters and subject areas under each, including wildlife, state lands, mining, water use, air and water permitting, environmental review, wetlands, drainage, and natural resources funding. The finance portion explained the committee’s appropriation types and major funding sources, including direct, statutory, and open appropriations. Staff highlighted the general fund, bonding, the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund, the Game and Fish Fund, and the Heritage Enhancement Account, along with how those dollars are typically used for parks and trails, habitat, land acquisition, flood and drainage projects, and agency operations. Members also discussed whether DNR and BWSR responsibilities in overlapping water statutes can conflict; staff said responsibilities are generally clear in statute, though conflicts can occur and are usually resolved.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, and when we're looking at a fee up Um, and when we're looking at a fee up to<00:08:43.599> $200
• It comes from ... electric vehicles again raising the fee electric vehicles again raising the fee from
• Uh many annual EV registration fee.
• Um it makes sense because it this fee.
• money um are the um retail delivery fee money um are the um retail delivery fee as<00:38:38.800>

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We've already heard facility fees. 20 states have enacted some sort of facility fee bill.
• And creating these facility fees.
• Our fees that we get paid from the insurance companies are way less than facility fees.
• We talked about facility fees.
• So we have typically built physician fees differently than the facility fee, and the facility fee ostensibly

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There’s a specific fee on facilities in that area.
• There's a specific fee on facilities in that area.
• And in doing so, the administration... ...to fee-for-service as well.
• The fee-for-service coordination services that you talk about that would be available under the fee-for-service
• We're going to have fee-for-service for those emergency room visits.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Health heard presentations on several May Revision proposals, beginning with an overview from the Legislative Analyst’s Office and the Department of Finance on the state’s budget condition and the administration’s efforts to reduce out-year deficits through a mix of revenue measures, fund shifts, and program reductions. The chair expressed support for some administration proposals, such as added health IT funding, county administration support, a delay in Medi-Cal cuts for some immigrants, and additional Covered California subsidy backfill, but also criticized proposed Medi-Cal premiums, changes to senior eligibility, the lack of a Medi-Cal dental solution, and other cuts affecting counties, workforce, and rural access. The LAO said the budget still relies heavily on reserves and borrowing and urged more reserves and caution on new commitments. The Department of State Hospitals presented several proposals, including reduced county bed billing authority, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscriptions, reversion of unspent prior-year funds, additional lease revenue authority for the Metro Central Utility Plant replacement, funding for electronic health record implementation, and a shift of workforce development costs to Behavioral Health Services Act funds. The department also described savings and realignments in its IST and CONREP programs, including making the Independent Placement Panel permanent and adjusting funding for jail-based competency treatment and conditional release services. Members questioned the BHSA workforce funding swap, and the administration said it was part of a broader General Fund offset strategy. The Emergency Medical Services Authority requested funding for statewide behavioral health crisis response guidance and for continued operation of its enterprise systems, and the Department of Managed Health Care sought funds to modernize its complaint system and claims settlement data systems. The largest debate centered on the administration’s proposed use of Behavioral Health Services Act revenues to offset General Fund spending and fund state-directed behavioral health programs. The Department of Finance said the proposal would support population-based prevention, workforce programs, mobile crisis services, and other state-directed uses, while the LAO said it was still reviewing whether the uses comply with Proposition 1 and whether the non-supplement and eligible-use requirements are met. The Commission for Behavioral Health strongly opposed proposed cuts to its Innovation Partnership Fund and community advocacy grants, arguing that both programs are central to community voice, culturally responsive services, and statewide innovation. Commissioners and many public commenters said the cuts would reduce grants to community-based organizations, tribal groups, veterans, LGBTQ communities, youth, and other underserved populations, and that the advocacy program helps communities participate in local planning and access services. The Department of Finance defended the reductions as a way to prioritize direct services and said the programs fit within Proposition 1, but members criticized the proposal as a midstream shift that would weaken community engagement and redirect funds away from prevention and advocacy.

Transcript Highlights:

• There was no fee allowed involved in that.
• There was no fee allowed involved in that.
• There was no fee allowed involved in that.
• There was no fee allowed involved in that.
• <00:43:21.880> allowed um there there was no fee allowed um there there was no fee allowed

Bills: HF2543, HF2566, HF2627

Keywords: garnishment, wage garnishment, earnings levy, bank levy, execution, judgment debtor, judgment creditor, exemption notice, exempt property, bank account freeze, financial institution levy, employer disclosure, garnishee, writ of execution, debt collection, consumer debt, collections, bankruptcy exemptions, public benefits, means-tested benefits

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:37:53.119> and fees that we collect are entry fees and fees that we collect are entry
• , judges may waive filing fees.
• Motions and petitions also make up other fees, and those fees range from $25 to $250.
• How many of these fees are, um, how are these fees increased?
• What's the contracted agent fee?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting featured presentations from the Department of Administrative Services and the Treasury Department on state revenue reporting and unclaimed property. State Comptroller Dana Call explained DAS’s role in compiling statewide revenue reports, including the annual revenue plan set through the budget process and the monthly revenue focus reports that track cash receipts. She noted that unrestricted general fund revenue is about $2 billion annually, while miscellaneous other revenue is a much smaller and less predictable category, averaging roughly $30 million to $32 million a year. She also described two more material internal revenue lines: statewide indirect cost recoveries and post-retirement benefit recoveries, which are billed to agencies and often tied to federal reimbursement rules. Members asked about the interest line in the revenue charts and about how the figures were presented, and Call clarified that the totals were in millions and that the interest item would be explained by the Treasurer. She also explained that the indirect cost and post-retirement recoveries are internal cost allocations that flow back into the unrestricted revenue pool and are reflected in agency budgets as interagency costs. Treasurer Monica Meissner then outlined Treasury Department functions, including bank deposits, statewide disbursements, banking relationships, investments, debt management, compliance, the FONA College Savings Program, the ABLE Plan, scholarship programs, and the abandoned property program. In discussing unclaimed property, she said holders report property after a five-year dormancy period, the state uses automated systems and outreach to locate owners, and claim activity has increased. In fiscal year 2024, the state returned about $12.2 million to citizens through roughly 12,000 claims; over the last 10 years, about $72.6 million has been returned. She also said the state escheated $19.9 million to the general fund and $1.8 million to counties last year, and explained that securities-related proceeds are harder to estimate because they depend on market conditions. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a fee. >> I'm sorry. A user fee. Okay. I'm sorry.
• . fees. fees.
• >> What kind of fee would you advise? >> What kind of fee would you advise?
• 2024, you may remember the hybrid fee 2024, you may remember the hybrid fee was<01:25:02.800>
• and you do not have to pay an EV fee. and you do not have to pay an EV fee.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The subcommittee approved the October 15 minutes and observed a moment of silence for the victims of the UPS Worldport plane crash. The main presentation was from Transportation Cabinet Commissioner Bobby Joe Lewis on the Local Assistance Road Program/County Priority Projects Program (LAARP/CPP), which was implemented under House Bill 546 and now requires rehabilitation projects to restore roads to original condition, cap funding at $500,000 per project, use a new scoring matrix, include a local match, and submit one photograph per 300 feet of project length. He reported that the 2026-2027 cycle ran from June 1 to October 1 and drew 1,215 project applications from 107 counties and 106 cities, with total submitted project costs of about $121.1 million and about $102.3 million requested after local match. He also said 30% of submissions scored 10s and 22% scored 9s, and that the list of requests and required photos had been submitted to the General Assembly and LRC. Members asked about how scores change over time, whether roads can move from lower scores to 10s, and whether the new process gives a better picture of local needs. Lewis said scores can change based on weather and road conditions, but the new system provides more information and a more standardized evaluation than before. Several members raised concerns about the volume and size of required photographs, suggesting drone footage or video as an alternative; Lewis said the photo requirement has caused confusion and large file uploads, and he was open to considering easier ways to document conditions. Members also discussed continuity in scoring across districts, and Lewis explained that district staff appointed by chief district engineers use a handbook and scoring matrix, with the scores entered into a computer system so evaluators do not see the final score while scoring. The committee also discussed funding levels and carry-forward balances for the program. Lewis said the program began with $20 million authorized in HR92, noted underruns from completed projects, and reported a carry-forward amount that had grown to $355,432.42 available for reauthorization as of October 13. In response to questions, he said the current process concentrates applications into a short window, with 63% of applications arriving in the last few days and 417 on October 1, which created a heavy workload but was completed on time. The meeting then moved to multimodal funding priorities, with Jennifer Kersner of Kentuckians for Better Transportation introducing herself and offering condolences for the UPS aviation incident before beginning her remarks.

Transcript Highlights:

• BUT WE ALSO DO COLLECT FILING FEES.
• FILING FEES FORECOURT CASES.
• COURT FILING FEES SENATOR MARTIN BEING AN ATTORNEY I AM SURE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE FILING FEES RIGHT
• WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SORT OF FILING FEES FOR THOSE.
• FEE INCREASE WHICH WE COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE FEE BILL. >> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And just to mention the motor fee increase, the vanity plate fee increase, uniquely among all the fees
• license fee.
• license fee.
• One of those fees that fines, fees, etc.
• fees.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all