Senate Transportation reviews AOT FY26 paving, roadway and traffic-safety budgets; paving allocation $102.91 million

Patrick Gotrick, a program manager in the Agency of Transportation's highway safety and design section, told the Senate Transportation Committee on March 20 that the administration's FY26 paving appropriation is $102,910,000, a drop of roughly $27 million from fiscal 2025.

The paving program budget “has construction funding shown for 46 different paving projects in fiscal 26” and is also intended to advance about 34 additional projects, Gotrick said. He said roughly 71 miles on the interstate and class 1 system are planned for 2-inch mill-and-fill or reclaim-style treatments, with another 31 miles slated for lower‑cost federal leveling work, for about 102 miles of surface treatments in the programs covered.

Why it matters: Committee members pressed AOT staff on how those projects are selected, how grant-funded projects appear on other lists, and how safety concerns factor into resurfacing decisions. Senators asked whether municipal or grant projects (for example, RAISE awards and other externally funded work) are shown in the same materials as formula-funded paving; AOT staff said they are usually managed separately and that the FY26 appropriation discussed at the hearing is formula and discretionary funds, not the special grants list.

“We have an appropriation of $102,910,000 which is a decrease from fiscal 25 of about $27,000,000,” Gotrick said during the presentation. Rob White, project delivery bureau director at the Agency of Transportation, told the committee that the list some members were reviewing earlier contained primarily grant-funded projects and therefore is distinct from the formula funds in the FY26 book: “That list is specifically just what you said. Most of what's on there is separate money from our appropriation. So it's grant money that came through special situations.”

Selection and scheduling: AOT staff described the paving program as asset-condition driven. Pavement-management data, regional planning input and surface-condition surveys feed the selection process; the department runs scenarios in a pavement management system to determine appropriate treatments and timing. Gotrick and other staff said right-of-way acquisitions are generally avoided in paving work because they introduce schedule risk and cost uncertainty; larger reconstruction or work that reaches right-of-way lines is moved to the roadway or traffic-and-safety programs.

Contracting approach: The agency said it can use composite contracts to package multiple nearby municipal paving projects to seek economies of scale, but staff emphasized they do not routinely shift a road’s scheduled treatment solely to match another project’s timing.

Safety and ancillary improvements: Staff said paving projects sometimes include low‑cost safety or multimodal improvements—markings, upgraded signage, shoulder conversions for bike lanes or new pedestrian crossings—when those elements fit the project scope and schedule. More complex safety enhancements typically move to the traffic-and-safety or roadway programs.

Program context and comparatives: Committee members asked about FY25 and FY26 productivity. Staff said FY25 paving funding was about $130 million and that program activity in FY25 produced roughly 181 miles of pavement work. Program staff cautioned that miles-per-dollar comparisons vary based on the mix of low-cost preventive maintenance versus higher-cost reclaim or reconstruction projects.

10(g) and out-of-cycle projects: AOT staff walked the committee through three 10(g) report groupings: projects added after the FY25 book; projects with escalated cost estimates (for example, projects that increased by $5 million or more or by large percentages); and projects removed from FY26 because they were completed in FY25. Staff described the 10(g) reporting requirement as the legislature’s statutory way to see projects added to or removed from the program after a prior budget was set.

Information access and follow-up: Staff directed senators to vTransparency for project-level contact information and said legislators could contact program managers for town‑level questions. Committee members requested clearer flowcharts or one‑page process diagrams showing how projects move from regional requests into the pavement-management queue and onto the construction schedule; AOT staff agreed to follow up with asset management on that request.

Discussion v. decisions: The hearing recorded technical briefing and Q&A; no formal motions or votes were taken on the paving, roadway or traffic-and-safety appropriations during the session.

What’s next: AOT staff said elements of the roadway and traffic-and-safety programs would be discussed further in subsequent hearings. Several senators asked staff to return with additional detail on project lists, miles per project and how grant-funded projects interact with the formula-funded program.