Conference committee refines report language for projects eligible for transportation bonds

The conference committee reconciling the transportation bill on May 20 heard staff explain replacement language that would require the agency to report on projects not included in the FY2028 transportation program that could be advanced if transportation infrastructure bonds were authorized.

The staff member laying out the language said the report would "include an analysis comparing the present value of the estimated cost to pay for the projects with transportation infrastructure bonds versus paying for them on a pay‑as‑you‑go basis, a comparison of their schedules, a review of historic transportation infrastructure bond usage, including debt service costs, and a projection of future debt service costs and of the revenues necessary to pay the debt service." The staff noted the review and projection items were additions the House requested.

Why it matters: the report would give lawmakers a standardized set of comparisons and schedule information to weigh whether to authorize bonds and how bond financing would alter the state’s capital program and future debt service obligations.

Joint Fiscal Office staff cautioned the committee that the draft’s phrase "on or after 02/01/2027" is unusual and could create ambiguity about when the report is due. The JFO representative said lawmakers might consider making the report deadline align with the presentation of the FY2028 "white book" (in January) to avoid producing multiple versions of budget documentation. "I don't know what that means, quite frankly, when the report would come due," the JFO representative said.

Committee members also urged the report to consider not only present‑value costs but the benefits of earlier project delivery. One committee member said the analysis should capture the value of having a bridge "10 years before" construction otherwise scheduled, because early delivery can produce measurable community and economic benefits.

An agency official warned that if bonding were added in FY2028, the agency’s FY2028 support budget—prepared without bonding—may lack money to cover new debt service. The official said the legislature would need to address how to fund the delta if bonds were authorized.

Members discussed practical alternatives to a full 10‑year plan, suggesting the white book could flag (for example, with a star) projects eligible for bond financing so decision makers can see which projects could be advanced with bonds and which should rely on TIP or other funds. The committee agreed information gathering and clearer deadline language would help the legislature use the report effectively.

Next steps: committee members agreed to refine the language on timing and report due date and to continue the conference committee work at a later meeting.