Officials seek authority to sell 110 State Street as FEMA funding nears finalization

On May 19, 2026, the Committee of the Conference between the House and the Senate Institutions Committees heard from Doug Barnum, the state’s chief recovery officer, about a proposal to retain the administration’s authority to sell 110 State Street and how pending FEMA funding would affect repairs.

Barnum told the committee that "110 State was one of the 16 buildings impacted in the 2023 floods," and that the state has been negotiating a Section 428 alternative‑procedures package with FEMA for almost three years. He said the package, once finalized, would come as a fixed project budget that includes both codes‑and‑standards funding and hazard‑mitigation funding.

Why it matters: Barnum said codes‑and‑standards money is complex‑wide and flexible (he estimated the codes‑and‑standards portion at more than $10 million across the complex), while the hazard‑mitigation portion tied to specific work on buildings is roughly $1,000,000. Under the Section 428 structure, Barnum said the state would retain codes‑and‑standards funding even if a building is sold after the package is agreed; hazard‑mitigation funding, he added, is action‑specific and would not be available if the mitigation work is not performed.

Committee members pressed Barnum on timing and scope. He said FEMA’s agreement could come "any day now" and that the Army Corps of Engineers had begun reviewing the repair packet for all 16 buildings a few weeks earlier. Members also asked which other properties might be marketed. Barnum noted that 1416 Baldwin (referenced during the meeting) is for sale but was not flood‑impacted; among the 16 flood‑impacted buildings, only 110 currently carries sale authority.

The committee discussed why 110 differs from smaller historic buildings: as a taller, multi‑story structure, the building’s future use would substantially affect repair scope and cost. Barnum said that is the principal reason to retain sale authority: "we might be able to find a more cost‑effective solution" if a private buyer’s intended use reduces repair requirements, freeing state funds to repair or improve other complex buildings.

Historic preservation was a recurring concern. Barnum said FEMA has classified 110 as a historic structure and that state historic‑preservation staff would identify covenants and protected elements (he cited facade, roof, front and sides as typical priorities). The chair said she had forwarded statutory language cited in the meeting as "22 7 53, 743" describing covenants for historic buildings; the committee did not read the full statutory text during the session.

A committee member urged preserving flexibility: "taking away the authority to sell that building... it's gonna tie the state's hands," they said, arguing the existing language allows the state options while FEMA negotiations conclude. Barnum confirmed that prior sales and demolitions in other cases had been handled under alternative procedures and that once FEMA and the state agree on a fixed budget the money is accounted for and administered subject to environmental and historic‑preservation approvals.

There was no motion or formal vote during the session. The committee agreed to a follow‑up meeting and a possible site visit; members set the next meeting for 9:30 a.m. the following morning.

Next steps: FEMA’s final agreement on the Section 428 package and any Army Corps findings are expected to shape whether the state proceeds with repairs, retains the building, or moves forward with a sale.