Committee weighs new federal‑funding briefings and a project dashboard for the transportation program

Legislative counsel and Agency of Transportation officials described draft bill language on April 17 that would require AOT to brief the Joint Transportation Oversight Committee on state and federal funding at two points in the fiscal year and to publish a program dashboard showing project delays and cost overruns.

Damian Leonard of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the committee the draft would ask the secretary of transportation to provide briefings on or before Sept. 30 and Dec. 15 covering federal funds received, anticipated federal funding for the state fiscal year, delayed or reduced federal grants, State Transportation Fund revenues and impacts on the fiscal year 2026 transportation program. The briefings would also summarize any legislative actions needed to address revenue or funding changes.

The draft adds a discretionary 14‑day emergency meeting requirement: if the secretary learns of a significant decline in state revenues or federal funding that threatens the ability to carry out the program, the secretary may request a meeting of the oversight committee within 14 days.

A reporting threshold would require a written, project‑level report when total state or federal funding declines exceed 4 percent; that report would detail the impacts and propose reductions or delays to stay within available funds. "If there's a decrease in overall state or federal funding that is in excess of 4%, the secretary would have to prepare a written report detailing the impact of the decrease on projects that are in the FY26 transportation program," Leonard said.

AOT Chief Engineer Jeremy Reed said the agency had concerns about a project‑by‑project listing — chiefly that legislative actors could be asked to choose individual projects — but said the requirement could be framed as an informational report rather than a directive for legislators to select projects for delay. Reed said the revised draft significantly reduces the administrative burden compared with earlier versions and that the agency could work with counsel to finalize language.

Separately, the draft proposes replacing the long‑standing “10(g)” annual project listing with a graphical dashboard (to be added as a new 10(g)(q)) in AOT’s proposed transportation program. The dashboard would show: the percentage of projects delayed more than one year from the preliminary plan projected completion date; and the percentage of projects whose cost has increased by more than 50 percent or $5,000,000 (whichever is less) from the preliminary plan estimate. Quarter‑to‑quarter updates would be provided to the committee.

The bill would phase in the dashboard on Jan. 1 next year and repeal the current 10(g) project‑listing report on July 1 next year, giving the committee one year of overlap. Committee members noted data limitations for the first dashboard year because agencies may not have historic milestone fields captured in IT systems; AOT acknowledged the first year’s data may be “lumpy” and said it would work with IT to improve reporting in subsequent years.

The committee also discussed end‑of‑year reversions: draft language would direct the secretary, with approval by the secretary of administration and within statutory limits, to identify mid‑year reversions from fiscal year 2025 appropriations (excluding Town Highway State Aid structures and class 2 roadway programs) to support the FY26 program, and to report identified reversions to joint fiscal oversight. Members noted this was intended to align program financing with fiscal decisions already made in the session; committee financial staff said one recent estimate of required reversions was roughly $4.5 million and that a $680,000 adjustment was part of the committee’s positions, but cautioned that final numbers depend on ongoing budget work.

Chair members said the reporting package is intended to give legislators timely situational awareness without inviting legislators to micromanage projects. AOT and legislative staff agreed to continue redrafting to address agency concerns about process and administrative workload.

No formal vote was recorded at the hearing; the committee directed counsel and AOT to keep refining the language for the bill.