Guam Legislature moves bill to let governor use ARPA funds for Mangilao utilities into Committee of the Whole
November 25, 2025 | General Government Operations and Appropriations , Legislative, Guam
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Guam Legislature convened a fifth special session on Nov. 25, 2025, and moved Bill 15s — an act authorizing the installation of utilities infrastructure on Lot 5280‑3 in Mangilao using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds — into the Committee of the Whole for further questioning and testimony.
Supporters urged quick action to avoid forfeiting federal money. “If this money is not spent by, I believe it’s December 26, any money unspent is sent back to the federal government,” said a senator who moved the bill to third reading, arguing the legislature could act now to keep roughly $100–104 million in ARPA commitments from being returned. Proponents described the measure as a one‑off authorization for the specific lot to allow utilities work — power, water, wastewater and environmental assessments — to proceed.
Opponents and cautious members pushed for more information and for the presence of key officials. Several senators said GPA, GWA, the attorney general’s office and representatives of the governor’s office should appear to answer questions about procurement, contract timelines and litigation. “We’re being asked as a legislature to do something quite extraordinary,” one senator said, urging a Committee of the Whole so the body could hear from the named agencies and probe claims that some prior actions may have violated procurement or open‑government rules.
At the Committee of the Whole, the panel of witnesses who appeared included Tina Garcia Guida, CEO and administrator of the Guam Economic Development Authority (GEDA); Diego Mendiola, GEDA Real Property Division manager; Joseph M. Borra, director of the Department of Land Management; Ed Byrne, director of administration; Graham Botha, GSA procurement counsel; and Lester Carlson, director of BBMR. The chair swore them in and allotted a single 10‑minute round of questions for the panel.
Panelists and counsel addressed three recurring concerns: whether ARPA permits funding for power as well as water and broadband; the legal effect of ongoing litigation and prior court findings related to property condemnation and notice; and the practical meaning of an ARPA “obligation.” Panel witnesses said ARPA’s infrastructure language allows a range of infrastructure uses and that, under recent Treasury guidance, an obligation requires a binding commitment such as a contract or purchase order. Administration witnesses said some funds were obligated via interagency agreements but that many downstream contracts remain unsigned and that utilities have been hesitant to proceed because of the attorney general’s position.
Lawmakers repeatedly pressed the panel on logistics for Lot 5280‑3, including who the adjacent landowners are and whether easements would cross military property. Department of Land Management testimony said maps showing a route to Lot 5280‑3 exist and identified adjacent owners; the department said easements through nearby military property (Eagles Field) were expected to be addressed with the military.
Senators raised legal and process questions that the committee said warranted further examination: whether earlier GEDA board notices complied with open‑government requirements, what specific legal objections the attorney general has lodged against the proposed procurements, whether obligated ARPA funds can be reprogrammed to other projects such as Guam Memorial Hospital, and whether substituting GSA procurement‑council review for AG 51‑50 review would create legal risk. Procurement counsel said the bill would delegate the 51‑50‑type review to procurement counsel but acknowledged the AG had not delegated review in this instance.
The Committee of the Whole voted to subpoena nonresponsive agencies after some members objected to proceeding without GPA, GWA, the AG’s office and the governor’s counsel. The committee recessed for lunch with plans to reconvene the session in the afternoon.
The committee’s next procedural steps are to hear additional testimony from subpoenaed parties if they appear, consider written proposed amendments submitted in advance to the clerk, and (if the record supports it) take up amendments and a recommendation on the bill. The panel repeatedly warned of timing risk: if procurement and contracting do not move forward by January–February, there may not be enough time to expend federal ARPA funds before the federal expenditure deadline.
Supporters characterized the bill as a targeted, temporary authorization to get utilities in the ground for Lot 5280‑3 and to preserve ARPA commitments; skeptics urged caution, full disclosure of agency analyses, and a recorded accounting of legal objections before the legislature substitutes its approval for the attorney general’s review.
Supporters urged quick action to avoid forfeiting federal money. “If this money is not spent by, I believe it’s December 26, any money unspent is sent back to the federal government,” said a senator who moved the bill to third reading, arguing the legislature could act now to keep roughly $100–104 million in ARPA commitments from being returned. Proponents described the measure as a one‑off authorization for the specific lot to allow utilities work — power, water, wastewater and environmental assessments — to proceed.
Opponents and cautious members pushed for more information and for the presence of key officials. Several senators said GPA, GWA, the attorney general’s office and representatives of the governor’s office should appear to answer questions about procurement, contract timelines and litigation. “We’re being asked as a legislature to do something quite extraordinary,” one senator said, urging a Committee of the Whole so the body could hear from the named agencies and probe claims that some prior actions may have violated procurement or open‑government rules.
At the Committee of the Whole, the panel of witnesses who appeared included Tina Garcia Guida, CEO and administrator of the Guam Economic Development Authority (GEDA); Diego Mendiola, GEDA Real Property Division manager; Joseph M. Borra, director of the Department of Land Management; Ed Byrne, director of administration; Graham Botha, GSA procurement counsel; and Lester Carlson, director of BBMR. The chair swore them in and allotted a single 10‑minute round of questions for the panel.
Panelists and counsel addressed three recurring concerns: whether ARPA permits funding for power as well as water and broadband; the legal effect of ongoing litigation and prior court findings related to property condemnation and notice; and the practical meaning of an ARPA “obligation.” Panel witnesses said ARPA’s infrastructure language allows a range of infrastructure uses and that, under recent Treasury guidance, an obligation requires a binding commitment such as a contract or purchase order. Administration witnesses said some funds were obligated via interagency agreements but that many downstream contracts remain unsigned and that utilities have been hesitant to proceed because of the attorney general’s position.
Lawmakers repeatedly pressed the panel on logistics for Lot 5280‑3, including who the adjacent landowners are and whether easements would cross military property. Department of Land Management testimony said maps showing a route to Lot 5280‑3 exist and identified adjacent owners; the department said easements through nearby military property (Eagles Field) were expected to be addressed with the military.
Senators raised legal and process questions that the committee said warranted further examination: whether earlier GEDA board notices complied with open‑government requirements, what specific legal objections the attorney general has lodged against the proposed procurements, whether obligated ARPA funds can be reprogrammed to other projects such as Guam Memorial Hospital, and whether substituting GSA procurement‑council review for AG 51‑50 review would create legal risk. Procurement counsel said the bill would delegate the 51‑50‑type review to procurement counsel but acknowledged the AG had not delegated review in this instance.
The Committee of the Whole voted to subpoena nonresponsive agencies after some members objected to proceeding without GPA, GWA, the AG’s office and the governor’s counsel. The committee recessed for lunch with plans to reconvene the session in the afternoon.
The committee’s next procedural steps are to hear additional testimony from subpoenaed parties if they appear, consider written proposed amendments submitted in advance to the clerk, and (if the record supports it) take up amendments and a recommendation on the bill. The panel repeatedly warned of timing risk: if procurement and contracting do not move forward by January–February, there may not be enough time to expend federal ARPA funds before the federal expenditure deadline.
Supporters characterized the bill as a targeted, temporary authorization to get utilities in the ground for Lot 5280‑3 and to preserve ARPA commitments; skeptics urged caution, full disclosure of agency analyses, and a recorded accounting of legal objections before the legislature substitutes its approval for the attorney general’s review.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting