[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6119281,"mediaKeyId","2712775-ea42de52365440afb1ec726c4030576b","parentId",2712775,"title","Committee backs pilot allowing construction‑manager‑at‑risk contracting for public projects above $15 million","audioSeconds",624,"startMs",3113000,"endMs",3737000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2712775-ea42de52365440afb1ec726c4030576b&start=3113&end=3737","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2712775-ea42de52365440afb1ec726c4030576b/thumbnail_3113000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6119281/West-Virginia/Committee-backs-pilot-allowing-constructionmanageratrisk-contracting-for-public-projects-above-15-million","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119281-1b8cea636c53b375ec2ac1ce554af379/orig.mp4?Expires=1770512967&Signature=BUATumOeSdslzhTSe~~TzKVe-iZKaW2~4SXA65RFgTzIeWSoiUwdmT4EPQ~Gb8jj8-fy16WZRKell5xEhm7HWd-bnsYcVuLlzVFAJLDkp03l9Mq7XZ0rqPfSRvo3kf~99rTRMNqonfxcDLgCZLbTVPXmlpfwzbX0R1q-MB8qyEh20Kc8G~T1~3IOvHepC8p57BRQK5K3WsfJLqC2VonzpwY0F65hs5wXlWcIFP~RvPDrSFkukiMqpFaoGSP8kQ371Bs0ynwwOsE5zXstn~IU7In6PZn7mi7hz7I0577Fsr4f1-YIQcaHMZC6NlYVRt8f1sx30a4Ca8HX2T~9KMQyOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","West Virginia Legislature","date","2025-03-20T00:00:00Z","article","The Committee on Government Organization voted to report a committee substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 5 87 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass.

The bill would authorize state and local public entities to use construction‑manager‑at‑risk, or CMAR, contracting on public construction projects with estimated costs greater than $15,000,000. Under CMAR, a construction manager is engaged during the design phase as a consultant and later serves as the contractor that assumes responsibility to deliver the project at the contracted price.

Why it matters: the bill is pitched as a pilot intended to limit cost overruns on large public projects — particularly school construction — by involving the construction manager early for constructability review, value engineering, and supply‑chain planning.

Committee counsel explained the selection and procurement steps: public entities would issue a request for qualifications, an evaluation committee (whose membership the bill specifies) would identify at least three prequalified firms, and the owner would then issue a request for proposals that includes pricing and performance criteria. If the owner cannot negotiate a contract with the highest‑ranked firm, the owner may negotiate with the second or third ranked firms. The bill also requires a single report to the joint committee on government finance about the CMAR program.

The draft raises two code thresholds: it lengthens the time bids must remain open from 30 to 60 days to allow for contract negotiations if all bids exceed available funding, and it raises the competitive‑bidding threshold from $25,000 to $50,000 to align with related code changes enacted in 2024.

Senators who spoke in support highlighted cost overruns on school and other public projects and the potential for CMAR to control scope and price earlier in project development. “What we have been experiencing in the industry has been cost overruns that have happened on a number of state projects, and, especially within our schools that are being built,” the senior Senator from the Eighth said. He described stakeholder meetings with contractors, architects and officials and characterized the bill as a pilot to see if CMAR will work in the state.

After discussion and no further amendments, the committee agreed by voice vote to report the committee substitute to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass.

Next steps: the committee’s favorable recommendation sends the bill to the full Senate for further consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","WV Senate Government Organization Committee in Session Mar 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Committee on Government Organization voted to report Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 5 87 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature WV, West Virginia","taxId",77714,"location","West Virginia","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6119286,"Committee advances bill requiring written contracts and one-year warranty for residential improvements",2607,489000,3096000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2712775-ea42de52365440afb1ec726c4030576b&start=489&end=3096","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2712775-ea42de52365440afb1ec726c4030576b/thumbnail_489000.jpg","/articles/6119286/West-Virginia/Committee-advances-bill-requiring-written-contracts-and-one-year-warranty-for-residential-improvements","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119286-436eaea5aab4d3b5adbe97489776b113/orig.mp4?Expires=1770512967&Signature=neYwN5oPyBzX5N-9A6WRPeJ3Oo9ry8HmVWEw4iwOqMYwnbftiveq6kzUzXYrwiy3Ft526b-caz8k3u5SGPgo-ZOlP27spn6Sq46Or2orM7kX9AExe3elDN6AIg8SIjkEJEwIijqTD7C92nd~ScKxBQ7ejf7lSLOFPryhhW3DLdWO8cNnW0m3UkLDbsAard~AYI4oJ3BX17cwNrcDXpgulmTLOK~Kb32RQ49P2VfStDCM2pZE3CCqnGWEjllgsNZGjJK707ZXSqvIcj-JeiFhCe50SxBSHhKGrnAwbAIVaMdwsyOdqcNySGX7fI-uXpGsQQdalF6HLGe8Zu9cwkQxgA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Committee on Government Organization voted to report Committee Substitute Senate Bill 5 69 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it do pass and, under its double reference, first be sent to the committee on judiciary.

The bill would require contractors who perform residential improvements to offer a written contract that includes specific representations and a warranty covering “all work performed pursuant to the contract” for one year from substantial completion; it also permits arbitration of disputes, provided arbitration proceedings occur within 50 miles of the residence.

Why it matters: the measure would standardize contract terms and warranty obligations for home construction and remodeling work statewide, create grounds for disciplinary proceedings before the Contractors Licensing Board for specified failures, and change warranty timing and scope that contractors must offer homeowners.

The bill as presented by committee counsel would “require a contract for residential improvements, include certain representations by the contractor, and provide a warranty,” and it sets the warranty period at one year for all work performed under the contract rather than the two different periods the prior version used, counsel said. Counsel also told the panel that the bill “allows arbitration of disputes but requires any arbitration proceedings be held within 50 miles of the residence” and that the arbitration clause must be prominent in the contract.

Counsel clarified legal terms and limits. On the meaning of “substantial completion,” counsel said it is “a term of art in the construction industry” and explained it denotes when “the project is completed sufficiently for the owner to have what is sometimes used as beneficial occupancy that they can use the structure or the improvements for the purpose for which they are intended.” Counsel further told senators the bill applies to any contractor and that the disciplinary teeth of the measure are limited to licensed contractors because only licensed contractors are subject to disciplinary proceedings before the Contractors Licensing Board.

A homeowner who testified to the committee described defects and code-enforcement problems at his new house as the kind of situation the bill aims to address. “Purchasing a home is probably one of the most important investments a family can make,” Jeremy Kinney, an active‑duty service member who testified as a private citizen, told the committee. Kinney described repeated septic failures, alleged placement of a neighbor’s house and septic on his property, and problems he attributed to the builder and local oversight.

Senators pressed staff on implementation and scope. Committee members asked whether the bill sets a minimum contract amount; counsel said there is no minimum dollar amount in the draft. Members also discussed commonplace exemptions such as homeowner‑performed work and the existing statutory thresholds that allow limited “handyman” work without a license; one senator recalled a threshold near $2,500 but counsel said the draft team declined to add a monetary threshold because it could be evaded by dividing work into smaller contracts.

Amendments and committee action: Junior Senator from the Fifteenth offered two amendments that the committee adopted by voice vote. The changes replace the phrase “accepted building practices” with “commonly accepted industry standards” and clarify the warranty language to read “all materials provided by the contractor are without defect.” After debate and the amendments’ adoption, the committee reported Senate Bill 5 69 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass, subject to its earlier referral to the judiciary committee.

What the bill does not do: counsel and members stated the bill cannot completely resolve problems where local inspections were improperly performed, where signatures were forged, or where permit sign‑offs were in error; those situations, counsel said, may require separate legislation or administrative remedies. Counsel also noted the “right to cure” provisions in a related article establish an inspection and cure process that triggers contractor‑licensing board review when defects are alleged.

Next steps: the committee’s recommendation sends the bill to the full Senate and leaves a second reference to the judiciary committee for legal review.","The Committee on Government Organization voted to report Committee Substitute Senate Bill 5 69 to the full Senate with a recommendation that it pass and sent the measure first to the judiciary committee.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6119276,"Committee lays over bill to publish ballot images and cast‑vote records amid privacy and implementation questions",1276,3750000,5026000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2712775-ea42de52365440afb1ec726c4030576b&start=3750&end=5026","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2712775-ea42de52365440afb1ec726c4030576b/thumbnail_3750000.jpg","/articles/6119276/West-Virginia/Committee-lays-over-bill-to-publish-ballot-images-and-castvote-records-amid-privacy-and-implementation-questions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6119276-9369cc1309603ba68bc7a3bef5efb667/orig.mp4?Expires=1770512967&Signature=LkSAC~l4u2XfcHZiESsdyj9h8e5jCDklQip45q5Fyg3f0-33E-ctf~pcNKT20jWP9-o2f5Bs7LBx1ROj2kW8bbgD5xra1-4CxbhDFSSVjaCkjMSrEph8C8PC02~mn8UNL~PbcRTfZob3eApobio~5dPHO3kMhQYCuKJBEYzHHI-nXDqpb4sassKVnnk2am4Rf1bjpQLeGUfnxdERz2ZV-l~Dx0pOqpADKNPttImjjOJdlX531FkLX6n5UIKDHlp-r04Rb10oDJrjvbLbh-HMmk466lOJblgCJxepcKh5iZ49jedEa7U6UjoBo3E5eHRgrPQzcXdhvhPSgDU9JEvZHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Committee on Government Organization heard testimony and technical explanation on Committee Substitute Senate Bill 5 93, which would require county election officials to electronically provide the Secretary of State with the cast‑vote record and ballot‑image files, organized by precinct, and would direct the Secretary of State to publish that information on a managed website. After questions from senators and witnesses about costs, timelines and voter anonymity, the committee laid the bill over for further drafting.

Why it matters: backers say saving and publishing ballot images alongside the cast‑vote record would create an additional layer for post‑election audits and help resolve disputed contests; critics raised concerns about voter privacy in small precincts, the risk of doctored images outside the official system, and operational burdens for county clerks.

Technical and cost issues: Dean Kersey, chief of staff at the Secretary of State’s office, described the practical steps counties would need to follow: machines aggregate totals into a non‑network election management computer, a report containing the cast‑vote record and ballot images would be exported to a thumb drive, and the file would then be uploaded to the Secretary of State. Kersey said some features exist in current voting systems and that the configuration is done before the election, but that the work would be a new task for clerks between election day and canvas. He said the office had requested a fiscal note and that the Secretary of State’s office estimated a cost of approximately $90,000 to the state for thumb drives and related secure transfer support; he also provided statewide vote‑count estimates mentioned to the committee (approximately 750,000 votes in a general election and about 450,000 in a typical primary).

Privacy and misuse questions: Michelle Holly, Fayette County Clerk and vice president of the County Clerk’s Association, said the current software does not add a timestamp or date stamp to the published images and noted a privacy risk in very small precincts where a few absentee ballots combined with public voter history might make ballots potentially identifiable. Holly suggested possible mitigations such as combining small precincts into a single posted file or randomizing the order of images, and she said the additional processing would add some time on election night but should not be a large burden if handled consistently.

Proponent testimony and other concerns: Linda Grindley of Citizens for Election Integrity supported the bill and told senators ballot images provide a backup for audits and can be useful if physical ballots are damaged. Kersey warned that while posted images would be authentic, anyone could download and alter images and then publish doctored material, which could be used by bad actors on social media. He told senators there is no statutory mechanism that gives a private citizen standing to force a statewide recount based solely on a self‑conducted hand count of posted images; recounts and contests remain governed by existing statutory timelines and procedures.

Committee action: Senator from Summers moved to lay the bill over to a future session to allow further work on language addressing the committee’s concerns. The motion carried by voice vote.

Next steps: the committee asked stakeholders — the Secretary of State’s office, county clerks and the bill’s proponents — to work on language to address anonymity protections, technical timeframes, and any necessary statutory deadlines before the bill returns to committee.","The committee considered a proposal to require county clerks to provide cast‑vote records and ballot images to the Secretary of State for public posting by precinct. The Secretary of State's chief of staff, a county clerk, and a proponent testified; the committee laid the bill over for further work on privacy and operational language.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee backs pilot allowing construction‑manager‑at‑risk contracting for public projects above $15 million

Committee advances bill requiring written contracts and one-year warranty for residential improvements

Committee lays over bill to publish ballot images and cast‑vote records amid privacy and implementation questions