Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Aid Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State Aid Road Construction asks legislature to broaden spending authority as bridge backlog grows
Summary
The Office of State Aid Road Construction told the Senate Appropriations subcommittee it needs broader spending authority and more staff to manage county bridge work and routine state‑aid projects; the office cited a roughly guaranteed $91 million annual revenue stream from taxes and identified about 10,500 county bridges under its oversight.
The Office of State Aid Road Construction told the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee it needs expanded budget (spending) authority and staffing to move more county bridge and state‑aid road projects into construction, arguing that funds sitting unspent lose purchasing power as material costs rise.
Director (Mr.) Lee described the office’s statutory role under Mississippi code section 65.965.37 and said the agency acts as steward for funds that flow to counties for state aid and local bridge programs. Lee said the program receives recurring revenue streams from fuel and use taxes and that, on average, the program secures about $91 million a year in revenue that is deposited to the state treasury.
Why it matters: the office told lawmakers that the Local System Bridge Program and state‑aid programs require flexible spending authority so the office can cash‑flow projects when counties bring shovel‑ready work. Lee said a hard cap or restrictive language in the appropriation can prevent timely use of funds and drive up costs through delay.
Lee told the committee the agency has about 54 authorized positions, with six current vacancies; he asked for continued ability to use salary authority to fill essential engineers and program specialists. He said the office oversees roughly 10,500 county bridges and that the condition of local bridges has risen in prominence over the last several years.
The agency asked the committee to review a previously included statutory or appropriation “cap” language for the Local System Bridge Program (a referenced $40,000,000 figure in the bill) and consider removing it because the program is now funded through recurring use‑tax receipts rather than periodic appropriations. Lee said the cap was originally included when the program was funded from bonds or other episodic sources and may no longer be necessary given a guaranteed revenue flow.
Lee urged the committee to “untie my hands, please, and let us spend the money we have,” saying early spending avoids higher construction prices later. He also described occasional spikes in cash‑flow demand when counties prepay or deposit funds to pursue projects, which can temporarily increase the agency’s need for spending authority to pay contractors in a timely way.
The committee asked for follow‑up on the origin of the section‑4 language and on the shifting needs of the bridge program; no formal committee vote was recorded in the transcript during this presentation.
