Transcript Highlights:

• This is how the calculation lays out and looks for each of the institutions.
• That rate would be rounded to the nearest hundredth for the calculation.
• This would not include any inflationary increases, so it's just what the current calculation is.
• So it's just what the current calculation would be under the current formula.
• But that's how that's calculated. On the completion factors, this is what you'll see.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is how the calculation lays out and looks for each of the institutions.
• That rate would be rounded to the nearest hundredth for the calculation.
• So it's just what the current calculation is. This would not include any inflationary increases.
• So it's just what the current calculation would be under the current formula.
• But that's how that's calculated. On the completion factors, this is what you'll see.

Summary: The Higher Education Funding Review Committee met to continue work on a draft higher education funding formula and related capital building fund changes. Lisa Johnson of the North Dakota University System updated the committee on the board’s developing policy for low-producing academic programs. She said the board is using a five-year rolling window, with thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, and that programs flagged in three consecutive review cycles would go to the board for review. Possible outcomes include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the policy would account for enrollment, program costs, workforce need, and programs that serve students outside their major. Johnson said the board would likely use an accompanying procedure to consider those factors. She also reported that about 200 programs could potentially be reviewed under current guidance, with 135 inactivated and 112 terminated, and said the process is intended to support quality and stewardship rather than simply cut programs. Jamie Wilkie then reported on the Capital Building Fund. He reviewed the fund’s history, matching requirements, and use for extraordinary repairs, deferred maintenance, and some legislatively authorized projects. He said about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with roughly 78.7% going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Committee members pressed for updated information on how much deferred maintenance has actually been reduced, and several members said they wanted clearer reporting on the return on investment from new buildings versus repairs. NDSU representatives said the tier funding has helped significantly reduce deferred maintenance and allowed demolition and renovation work on campus. The committee also discussed the need for updated five-year facility plans and space-utilization information from the institutions. The committee then began a section-by-section review of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and restructure the capital building fund. The draft would fund UND and NDSU differently from the other nine institutions, use fall enrollment rather than completed credits, add performance funding for completions in in-demand fields, create research incentives for UND and NDSU, and combine capital building fund tiers while changing matching requirements and eligible uses. Members raised concerns about the treatment of professional students, the use of CIP codes, incentives for waivers, and whether the formula should rely on more current data. The committee did not take final action on the draft during this meeting, but it continued detailed discussion and indicated more review would follow.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe we want to look at having a true methodology to calculate an amount.
• Whatever you guys think is the right way to go, we can calculate that out and look at it. And, Mr.
• Next, we added an on-campus face-to-face headcount calculation.
• And there's different methodologies on how to calculate the payroll and the increases.
• It makes a difference on how the biennial budget is calculated. And now we did change it.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Higher Education Funding Committee met to discuss possible changes to North Dakota’s higher education funding formula, with a particular focus on separating the UND School of Medicine and Health Sciences MD program from the general formula. Dr. Jenkins outlined several options for the MD program, including a fixed-funding model, a hybrid model, or keeping it in the formula, and emphasized the need to preserve strong support for medical education while making future funding clearer. He also discussed efforts to increase the share of North Dakota students in the MD program through ND85, expanded recruiting, early acceptance pathways, MCAT prep, a four-plus-one program, and the Primary Care Accelerated Track, along with future cost pressures such as AI licensing and residency growth. The committee then reviewed a simplified funding model from the University System Office that would base funding more heavily on student FTE, credentials awarded, and a few incentive factors such as small institution and research adjustments. Members questioned the use of placeholder numbers, the lack of a clear methodology for the small institution and research factors, and whether the model would adequately account for differences among institutions, high-cost programs, and graduate education. Several members raised concerns that arbitrary factors would be hard to defend politically and could distort funding or create competition between schools, while others said the exercise was useful as a starting point for discussion. Alex presented a second alternative that kept the current SIP-code structure but increased CTE weighting, added a progressive economic size factor, and separated out the MD program. His model also added an on-campus face-to-face headcount component and a credentials component, with the intent of rewarding in-person enrollment and completions. Members questioned the use of headcount instead of FTE, how hybrid, online, dual-credit, and off-campus students would be treated, and why face-to-face enrollment was weighted more heavily than completion. No formal votes or final actions were taken; the committee instead continued discussion and asked members to provide direction on which elements, if any, should be developed further.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's not a calculation, but it was such a big number. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
• That's not a calculation, but it was such a big number. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
• That's not a calculation, but it was such a big number. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
• That's not a calculation, but it was such a big number. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
• know was that part of the calculation know was that part of the calculation that<00:14:45.560>

Keywords: Meeting Start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:05 Capitol Renovations Update 00:00:40 Damage from Recent Disaster Discussion 00:33:25, 958, all

Summary: The committee met for its third meeting of the session and received an update on the Capitol renovation project from Finance and Administration Secretary Holly Johnson and State Budget Director John Hicks. They reported the project budget remains $291.52 million, with Messer Construction as construction manager, and said the temporary legislative chamber completion has slipped into 2025 because of wiring, voting machine, KET camera, and canopy work. They outlined the current bid schedule: site and utility bids due February 27, 2025; roofing and fourth-floor structural work due April 24; major renovation bids due May 23; bid review in late May and early June; roofing and fourth-floor work beginning in late June; and overall construction starting July 7, 2025. A major focus of the discussion was the project contingency, which officials said is only $10.8 million for an older building with significant unknown conditions. They explained that earlier investigations led to about $60 million in value engineering cuts, including more than $40 million tied to unexpectedly extensive terrace damage on the north, south, and east sides. The terraces were originally expected to need only minor work, but officials said investigations showed reconstruction would eventually be necessary and could not be handled by simple restoration. They also said the mechanical equipment plan changed from a basement location to a vault under the east parking lot, and that the west terrace will still see some ADA-related work. Committee members questioned why the terrace work was not included in the current budget, whether doing it later would cost more, and why bids and construction planning had taken so long. Officials said the terraces were left out because of cost, that future work would likely be more expensive because of market escalation, and that the timing reflected extensive investigation needed to produce reliable bids. Members also raised concerns about scaffolding and the temporary chambers; officials clarified that the scaffolding discussed was for the separate Capitol Dome project, not the chamber project, and said the Dome scaffolding is part of that project cost and is expected to come down in early 2027. They said the temporary chambers are expected to be used for three sessions, through the 28th session, with a return to the Capitol planned for the 29th session, and that public tours of the Capitol would likely end around June depending on the bid results and construction schedule.

Transcript Highlights:

• We removed excused absences in the school calculation.
• What's the calculated difference in that?
• We don't have a calculated difference at this time for that.
• This was done to align the calculation methodologies for the UC and CSU.
• We had calculated 1.85% for the current year growth at the time.

Summary: The committee heard the May Revision presentation for the Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance, with public comment focused heavily on K-12 priorities such as universal school meals, kitchen infrastructure, food service and custodial support, youth leadership grants, Special Olympics funding, English learner support, universal pre-K, literacy investments, and concerns about community college funding shifts. Speakers also urged support for expanded learning, teacher recruitment and training, and maintaining or increasing funding for community colleges and student support programs. Finance and the LAO then reviewed the Proposition 98 outlook. Finance said the May Revision lowers the 2025-26 Prop. 98 guarantee to $114.6 billion, about $4.3 billion below January, due mainly to lower revenue estimates, with smaller effects from attendance and property tax changes. The administration also described rebenching for universal transitional kindergarten and a one-time rebench tied to Los Angeles fire-related property tax losses, along with changes to the Public School System Stabilization Account, deferrals, and updated COLA assumptions. The LAO said the budget relies too much on deferrals and one-time funds, creates a structural shortfall, and should instead align ongoing spending with the guarantee and preserve a reserve buffer. Members questioned the TK rebench and the shift of funding from community colleges to K-12, asking why it was being applied retroactively and how colleges would be held harmless. Finance said the changes align funding with where TK costs are being incurred and that reappropriation funding and other adjustments would offset impacts on community colleges. The LAO argued the historical split formula is outdated and should be abandoned in favor of budgeting around current priorities rather than fixed percentages. Members also raised concerns about draining the rainy day reserve and using deferrals, while the LAO said preserving reserves would better protect against future volatility. The committee then moved to specific K-12 and education proposals. Finance outlined May Revision changes including state operations adjustments for the Department of Education, technical trailer bill changes, a $100 million student teacher stipend program administered by Kern County, and updates to the charter school facility grant program. The LAO recommended rejecting the proposed increases for expanded learning, literacy coaches, and the student teacher stipend as currently structured, while supporting the minimum grant increase for expanded learning. Members expressed support for teacher recruitment efforts but questioned whether one-time funding can sustain ongoing programs and whether the student teacher stipend should be targeted to shortage areas or low-income communities.

Transcript Highlights:

• calculated calculated that<00:39:20.599> 199 point4<00:39:25.720> okay<00:39:26.640>
• People with calculators, we can take 0.5 off the average.
• Did somebody calculate that?
• <01:11:44.120> for uh the cafer that we just calculated for uh the cafer that we just calculated
• because I haven't done the calculation because I haven't done the calculation well<03:30:28.640>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in a work session on revenue estimates and reviewed updated spreadsheet pages for several tax categories, using prior agreements and new testimony to refine FY 2025-2027 estimates. Early discussion covered insurance tax estimates, where members reviewed a letter from the insurance commissioner saying he was comfortable with the numbers provided; the committee accepted those estimates without opposition. Members also discussed utility property tax, with testimony about recent infrastructure buildout, tariffs, depreciation, and the difficulty of forecasting future growth. After debate over whether to use the average of high and low estimates or lean lower, the committee unanimously adopted the utility property tax numbers. The committee then turned to real estate transfer tax and communications tax. For real estate transfer tax, members cited county input, housing market conditions, interest rates, lumber costs, and uncertainty about future policy; they agreed to use the averages and adopted those estimates unanimously. For communications tax, members noted the decline in landline-based revenue and the shift to data services. After discussion of whether to use the low estimate or the average, the committee settled on the average with a small rounding-down adjustment when the figure ended in .5, and adopted the numbers unanimously. The chair also clarified that these estimates remain subject to change until the final resolution is adopted. The committee next accepted interest and dividends estimates as presented, with members noting the decline in that revenue source and the lack of additional information beyond the department’s analysis. Finally, the committee began discussing tobacco tax revenue, with members noting long-term declines in smoking, offsetting effects from out-of-state sales, and a suggestion to take a slightly conservative approach by reducing the average by 0.5. The transcript cuts off during that discussion, so no final vote on tobacco is shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• the what we did not meet calculations the what we did not meet the<01:36:53.639> calculations
• oh yeah so the the calculations oh yeah so the calculation<01:36:56.320> requirements<01:36:56.880
• <01:37:16.800> which also there's a second calculation which also there's a second calculation
• goes we have to do some calculations goes we have to do some calculations that<01:41:30.920>
• determine if we've met the calculation determine if we've met the calculation requirements<01:41

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And there are four calculations, as you know, the school districts go through, and when they come out
• Scholarship, school district calculations, sort of dealing with the new environment of universal school
• And in calculations currently, whether it's the first calculation, third calculation, or final calculation
• comes out in the quarterly calculation.
• WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT THE MAJOR FEFP FORMULA COMPONENTS INCLUDED IN THE SENATE FEFP CALCULATION AND WHEN

Bills: SJR4, SJR40, SJR81, SCR37, SCR39, SB22, SB32, SB33, SB36, SB38, SB95, SB209, SB249, SB311, SB326, SB365, SB458, SB609, SB660, SB664, SB693, SB732, SB745, SB760, SB762, SB779, SB783, SB785, SB868, SB871, SB883, SB921, SB955, SB993, SB996, SB1008, SB1057, SB1067, SB1151, SB1171, SB1210, SB1255, SB1265, SB1267, SB1271, SB1307, SB1313, SB1316, SB1318, SB1321, SB1332, SB1365, SB1426, SB1470, SB1484, SB1494, SB1559, SB1592, SB1596, SB1598, SB1637, SB1677, SB1706, SB1758, SB1762, SB1786, SB1809, SB1818, SB1822, SB1841, SB1871, SB1967, SB2064, SB2077, SB2112, SB2148, SB2320, SB2406, SB2407, SJR36, SJR81, SJR50, SJR4, SJR40, SJR27, SCR22, SCR12, SCR39, SCR38, SCR37, SB921, SB609, SB660, SB765, SB62, SB666, SB888, SB687, SB847, SB1248, SB504, SB305, SB296, SB284, SB304, SB1023, SB204, SB670, SB850, SB854, SB413, SB1346, SB1033, SB1220, SB1073, SB810, SB1539, SB447, SB1119, SB1505, SB1215, SB1302, SB583, SB673, SB681, SB1172, SB955, SB957, SB541, SB266, SB1415, SB53, SB1352, SB785, SB1450, SB1502, SB1566, SB1062, SB711, SB746, SB1404, SB1448, SB507, SB1026, SB1349, SB1355, SB1433, SB1434, SB1596, SB1403, SB667, SB1059, SB1567, SB310, SB311, SB505, SB1210, SB1470, SB264, SB1358, SB1364, SB1569, SB1376, SB1228, SB519, SB1350, SB462, SB827, SB1585, SB1484, SB1273, SB927, SB1227, SB1229, SB1353, SB1464, SB1709, SB1729, SB1733, SB1744, SB1772, SB1841, SB1008, SB2016, SB1173, SB1163, SB996, SB1370, SB1321, SB1101, SB860, SB993, SB693, SB1537, SB1332, SB1307, SB963, SB493, SB984, SB619, SB1122, SB455, SB522, SB1057, SB1239, SB1254, SB1255, SB1259, SB1341, SB1877, SB1277, SB32, SB732, SB731, SB268, SB1822, SB1589, SB397, SB1058, SB1267, SB2112, SB1930, SB532, SB508, SB292, SB291, SB901, SB1333, SB1436, SB1494, SB964, SB779, SB1378, SB2312, SB1719, SB287, SB2143, SB1245, SB261, SB1247, SB2406, SB2407, SB1882, SB618, SB38, SB393, SB1371, SB1365, SB2243, SB2226, SB2039, SB1919, SB1895, SB1598, SB1493, SB1810, SB1791, SB1706, SB1644, SB1238, SB783, SB458, SB22, SB651, SB897, SB1809, SB1080, SB745, SB826, SB989, SB1320, SB1437, SB2320, SB2289, SB1171, SB664, SB1637, SB2064, SB868, SB1079, SB1243, SB1504, SB1851, SB1879, SB2237, SB1257, SB2034, SB1522, SB883, SB249, SB1318, SB1151, SB596, SB1191, SB226, SB570, SB870, SB991, SB60, SB365, SB1067, SB1786, SB326, SB1401, SB1592, SB1728, SB1265, SB586, SB529, SB217, SB209, SB1923, SB1559, SB1839, SB387, SB1874, SB1872, SB1873, SB1921, SB1883, SB1677, SB95, SB1620, SB1838, SB2024, SB2429, SB1999, SB511, SB2309, SB2166, SB871, SB510, SB33, SB2420, SB1860, SB1541, SB1316, SB1314, SB1313, SB1426, SB1398, SB1869, SB1750, SB1871, SB36, SB855, SB1233, SB760, SB2425, SB2037, SB1758, SB1759, SB2365, SB1924, SB762, SB1271, SB1818, SB605, SB1405, SB1762, SB1968, SB1977, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB1967, SB1662, SB1663, SB2124, SB2204, SB1855, SB863, SB37, SJR39, SCR1, SCR27, SCR32, SCR42, SCR6, SB2232, SB819, SB2078, SB2252, SB1962, SB2253, SB825, SB1577, SB1184, SB2018, SB2206, SB1901, SB1030, SB2368, SB1963, SB1960, SB1643, SB1625, SB1299, SB841, SB668, SB584, SB231, SB2411, SB1085, SB2431, SB2231, SB1490, SB530, SB34, SB1261, SJR81, SB32, SB458, SB664, SB693, SB868, SB1008, SB1267, SB1307, SB1321, SB1484, SB1637, SB1809, SB1822, SB2064, SB2112, SB2320, SB2406, SB2407, SB609, SB660, SB921, SB779, SB1470, SR388, SB3042, SB440, SB2876, SB3042, SB440, SB2876

Keywords: economic stabilization fund, state finance, constitutional amendment, budget management, financial security, emergency powers, legislative authority, governor powers, disaster management, tax exemption, ad valorem, tangible personal property, income production, SCR 37, Senate Concurrent Resolution, Panama Canal, Texas ports, port infrastructure, maritime trade, shipping lanes

Transcript Highlights:

• So, We can still know where we're at financially with that new money calculation.
• The new money calculation allows us to say how much above and beyond our recurring and non-recurring
• Is it A $1 $50 how much money are we talking about and how that calculation?
• it and then the department's responsible for uh making that calculation and submitting it for.
• Approval of that calculation to the federal government.

Transcript Highlights:

• That's an important thing. of the formula are calculated based on of the formula are calculated based
• Um, we calculate that through fiscal year 26, and that's the last year that we'll be calculating that
• And when we calculate it in fiscal year 26, that will be the last time we calculate it, and so then those
• <04:52:19.120> that 25% for that child um we calculate that 25% for that child um we calculate
• using a a pretty technical calculation using a a pretty technical calculation Mark<05:07:58.840>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Finance Division II committee heard a Department of Education budget presentation from Commissioner Frank Edelblut and CFO Tammy Valen-cour. The department outlined its organizational structure and emphasized that it functions largely as a flow-through agency for school funding. The commissioner reviewed general fund and Education Trust Fund items, including state aid, dropout prevention, special education, building aid, lease aid, charter schools, Education Freedom Accounts, and the district adequacy calculation. He also highlighted the public school infrastructure fund, saying the state has invested well over $50 million in school safety since 2018 for measures such as access controls, locks, and window film, and argued that safety spending should be ongoing rather than reactive. Members asked about the variability in the school infrastructure line, special education aid, and the Discovery Education learning platform. Edelblut explained that some safety funding had come from one-time surplus appropriations rather than the agency line, and said special education aid was underappropriated because districts submitted more invoices than expected; he said the governor added $16 million to address the shortfall. He also described CTE renovation funding, noting four projects were initially proposed but only Jaffrey and Milford were still moving forward, with local votes required and the state covering 75% of costs. He said Milford’s project was omitted from the governor’s budget by oversight. The department also reviewed enrollment trends, noting public school enrollment has fallen from about 230,000 students in 2002 to about 185,000 today. Edelblut clarified that charter students are not eligible for Education Freedom Accounts, while EFA students attending non-public schools are counted as EFA students. He described several one-time surplus-funded initiatives, including Student Clearinghouse, MTSSB work, civics curriculum development, computer science education, and adult education. He also discussed a $4 million CTE tuition and transportation grant, saying it was kept as a competitive grant rather than a formula grant to avoid creating an ongoing maintenance-of-effort commitment that could jeopardize federal Perkins funding. In the final portion, Edelblut identified prioritized needs in the department’s budget, especially funding for a state administrator for assessment to support the legislatively required civics assessment, and additional support for the Discovery Education platform. He said every school in the state is using the platform and cited more than 1.5 million educator engagements, while a member raised concerns about mixed reviews and uneven district awareness of the program. No votes or formal actions were taken during the presentation and question period.

Transcript Highlights:

• How they calculated how much they had, they used budgeted amounts as opposed to actual.
• So they took into consideration budgeted expenses when they were calculating their balance.
• How they calculated how much they had, they used budgeted amounts as opposed to actual.
• So they took into consideration budgeted expenses when they were calculating their balance.
• So they took into consideration budgeted expenses when they were calculating their balance instead of

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to hear a presentation from the Florida Auditor General’s office on recent operational audits of four universities and to discuss how audit findings are handled. The Auditor General explained that financial audits occur annually and operational audits at least every three years, with universities required to respond in writing to findings; the office generally follows up in the next audit cycle, though it can audit sooner if needed. Members asked about accountability, whether findings are referred to other bodies, and how internal university audit functions interact with the state audit process. The chair emphasized the committee’s oversight role in ensuring public funds are used appropriately. The audit findings highlighted issues at New College of Florida, Florida A&M University, the University of Florida, and Florida Atlantic University. At New College, auditors cited invoice/payment errors, delinquent student account collection delays, prohibited extra compensation, exceeding state remuneration limits for certain employees, weak purchasing card controls, construction management cost documentation issues, and subcontractor licensing documentation gaps. At FAMU, auditors found investment accounting classification issues, delayed bank reconciliations, late vendor payments, and incomplete annual employee evaluations. At UF, auditors reported concerns over a $6.4 million consulting contract, event and catering spending, president’s office hiring and salary practices, bonus and relocation payments, continued high compensation after the president transitioned to another role, travel expenses including charter flights, and remote work agreements. At FAU, auditors found distance learning fee revenue exceeded allowable costs by about $2.8 million, carry forward funds were underreported by about $77 million, and credit card controls needed improvement. Members pressed the Auditor General on whether overpayments were refunded, whether any findings involved statutory violations, and what enforcement exists beyond the audit report. The auditor said some issues were corrected by the universities, such as New College recovering excess compensation from foundation funds, but others would be revisited in future audits; if potential fraud were identified, it would be referred to the state attorney’s office. The chair closed by noting that accountability for public spending rests with the Legislature and the committee, and the meeting adjourned without any vote or formal action beyond receiving the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• So that doesn't go into the calculation on... ...doesn't go into the calculation on Medicaid.
• form, where you say this is how much money I make, how much money mom makes, and the judge will calculate
• And you know, this would not affect child support at all; the judge won't calculate this into...
• The judge won't calculate this into your child support, and if you cannot afford insurance, you're going

Bills: HB37, HB187, HB177, SB63, HB82, SB48, HB33, HB37, HB33

Keywords: judicial compensation, salary increase, court system, Alabama legislation, judges, HB187, court fees, docket fee, sheriff's fund, sheriff's office, jail operations, law enforcement, county sheriff, court filing fees, Alabama Code 12-19-312, solicitor's fund, clerk's fund, forensic services trust fund, budget flexibility, public safety

Transcript Highlights:

• And there's a variety of factors that go into that particular calculation, which is done.
• which is done uh particular calculation which is done uh the<00:05:41.280> pdium<00:05:41.759
• So if the projections and the assumptions and the calculations are incorrect and there's excess money
• Could you clarify exactly what that is and how it's calculated and why it exists? >> Sure.
• and why it is and how it's calculated and why it exists?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Fiscal Committee met on December 19, with Senators Long and Lang serving as replacements. The committee approved the November 21 minutes and adopted the consent calendar after removing two Department of Health and Human Services items for separate discussion. It then took up an HHS request involving nursing facility rates, where Nathan White explained that $2.2 million would be transferred from a long-term care Medicaid eligibility contract to the nursing facilities budget. He said the funds would offset an otherwise projected 3.9% average rate decrease and bring the overall average change to zero for the next six months, with rates reset again in July under state law. Members asked about the budget adjustment factor, bed counts, and whether additional funds could raise rates further; White said the factor is statutory, capped at 28.76%, and that more money would lower the factor and increase rates. The committee also corrected a date in the request from February 1, 2025 to February 1, 2026, and approved the item. The committee next approved another HHS item related to rural health transformation grants. Members confirmed the request covered the full amount applied for this biennium, and asked about the technology component. HHS said the grant is not solely about AI, but about broader technology improvements such as electronic medical records, back-end systems, and tools to improve access and sustainability in underserved areas. The committee approved that item as well. The Judicial Council then requested funds for contract attorneys providing indigent defense on a fixed-fee basis. The council said current funds had already been exhausted and that the new appropriation would be used immediately. Members questioned the size of the request and the number of people awaiting counsel; the council reported about 150 incarcerated people and about 300 non-incarcerated people waiting for counsel, more than in recent years. It attributed the increase to competition for attorneys, public defender offices closing intake in some locations because of caseload limits, and broader case and court-system changes. One member raised constitutional concerns about delays in counsel for incarcerated defendants. The committee ultimately amended the request downward to $1 million, approved it, and then approved a motion to place several annual financial reports on file and release them to the public when available. The committee also discussed dashboard reporting from HHS, asking for more detail on community mental health center caseloads and budget-reduction information, and HHS agreed to provide more useful monthly detail.

Transcript Highlights:

• For starters, the cost of updating point-of-sale systems to track and calculate the delivery fee can
• Bell, it causes some real complexities relative to the calculation.
• In fact, a lot of my small retailers do that calculation by hand because it's too costly to implement
• Bell, it causes some real complexities relative to the calculation.
• All of that is calculations, and if you're wrong, then what?

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The Minnesota House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee met on January 22, 2025, for its first meeting and took up House File 5, introduced by Representative Jim Joy and moved to the Tax Committee. Joy said the bill would make Minnesota more affordable by eliminating the Social Security tax, repealing the motor fuels tax inflator, removing the retail delivery fee, and changing vehicle-related taxes and metro-area sales tax allocations. Committee fiscal staff reviewed the bill’s fiscal effects, including impacts on the general fund, the Highway User Tax Distribution Fund, the Transportation Advancement Account, and the split between Metropolitan Council and metropolitan counties. Testimony was largely divided along stakeholder lines. The Minnesota Grocers Association and Minnesota Propane Association supported repealing the retail delivery fee, arguing it creates administrative burdens, requires costly software changes, and raises costs that are passed on to consumers; propane representatives said the fee is especially burdensome because most of their deliveries are exempt but still require tracking and reporting. In contrast, the League of Minnesota Cities, Minnesota Association of Small Cities, Metro Cities, and Minnesota Association of Townships emphasized the need for stable, predictable transportation funding for local roads and said they support the Transportation Advancement Account and related revenue streams, though some were neutral on the exact source of funding. The League and small cities groups said local governments need reliable annual revenue and that past funding has been inconsistent. Committee members asked about who pays the delivery fee, its exemptions, and how much revenue it has generated versus earlier forecasts. Fiscal staff said current estimates for delivery fee revenue are below original projections, and explained the fee’s exemptions and $100 transaction threshold. Representative Joy said his intent was to keep small cities and townships whole as the bill moves forward. No vote was taken in the portion of the meeting provided; the bill was heard and referred as noted at the outset.

Transcript Highlights:

• How language or how statute requires you to calculate pre-funding is without any of your money.
• How language or how statute requires you to calculate pre-funding is without any regard to the changes
• into is about a half a percent increase in the employer rate, and that calculates to about a $7 million
• Which actually would make it where there would be no variation in that calculation.
• Chair, if I can, with how the funding policy is: the increase in the calculation or the contribution

Bills: SB1046, SB1317, SB1376, SB1416, SB1448, SB1471, SB1493, SB1498, SB1502, SB1504, SB1538, SB1544, SB1550, SB1579, SB1581, SB1584, SB1624, SB1673

Keywords: telecommunications, broadband, internet infrastructure, critical infrastructure, cybersecurity, national security, foreign adversary, China, Chinese equipment, supply chain security, network equipment, microchips, Arizona Corporation Commission, telecommunications provider, communications infrastructure, Huawei, ZTE, state-owned enterprise, sanctions, infrastructure security

Summary: The committee first approved its February 4 minutes and announced several bills would be held, including SB 1317, SB 1416, SB 1419, SB 1490, and SB 1493. It then heard SB 1579, which would appropriate about $4.7 million from the state general fund to expand a law enforcement data-sharing pilot through the Department of Administration, with funds for DPS, county sheriffs, university police, and city/town police departments. Testimony from the sponsor, Flagstaff’s mayor, Eloy’s police chief, and Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office staff emphasized faster records access, better coordination, and officer safety; an amendment added $125,900 for the Scottsdale Police Department after it had been omitted. The committee adopted the amendment and gave SB 1579 a do pass recommendation by a 6-0 vote with one not voting. The committee next considered SB 1581, which appropriates about $1.4 million from the Peace Officer Training Equipment Fund for pepperball equipment and about $1.316 million for public safety training simulators, with an amendment increasing the Nogales Police Department’s pepperball allocation and expanding simulator funding so Yavapai County could buy two simulators with a three-year warranty. Supporters from Navajo County, Phoenix, Glendale, Flagstaff, and Cochise County described pepperball as a de-escalation tool and simulators as important for crisis-response and use-of-force training. The committee adopted the amendment and passed SB 1581 as amended on a 7-0 vote. SB 1673 was heard next and would appropriate $8.2 million from the general fund to the Law Enforcement Crime Victim Notification Fund, exempting the appropriation from lapsing. The sponsor and law enforcement witnesses said the automated notification system has improved victim communication, reduced workload, and sent millions of updates; committee members asked about funding sources and why a bill is needed for a constitutionally mandated program. The committee approved SB 1673 without amendment on a 7-0 vote. The committee also heard SB 1544, which would make adult probation records public on request, while requiring redaction or withholding of sensitive information such as victim data, minors’ information, medical or counseling records, active investigations, and confidential informants, and creating a process for written denials and court appeals. The sponsor said the bill is intended to increase transparency and data access, while witnesses raised concerns about risk-assessment language and confidential information; the sponsor said amendments would be brought later to clarify those provisions. The committee passed SB 1544 on a 4-3 vote. Finally, SB 1376, creating a civic leadership development special plate and fund for a youth mentoring nonprofit, passed unanimously, and SB 1550, a three-year Queen Creek pilot program to prevent runaway youth exploitation and improve investigations, also passed after testimony from Queen Creek officials and police; one senator voted no, citing concerns about how runaway youth are treated in other legislation. The committee then began hearing SB 1504, a pension bill modifying retirement dates and COLA timing for Tier 2 and Tier 3 public safety personnel, with supporters arguing it would improve recruitment and retention and opponents warning it would create significant unfunded liabilities, but the transcript cuts off before final action on that bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• It also removes TK funding from the K-12 community college split calculation.
• Over the past decade this calculation has come to encompass a growing list of exceptions.
• We removed excused absences from the school of calculation.
• What's the calculated difference in that? We don't have a calculated difference at this time.
• This was done to align the calculation methodologies for the UC and CSU.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And right now, insurance companies, how they calculate the price of what we should be paying is 100%
• And right now, insurance companies, how they calculate the price of what we should be paying is 100%
• Territorial loss cost is a method insurers use to calculate premiums based on the location where a vehicle
• This bill will require that auto insurance companies, when calculating the premium for a driver, can
• Can you give me more information on how these territories are calculated?

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Financial Services held a public hearing on a wide range of auto insurance and vehicle-related bills. Testimony focused heavily on autonomous vehicle regulation, auto insurance rating by ZIP code, rental car liability coverage, and surcharge thresholds for minor accidents. Representative Polito supported a bill to regulate autonomous vehicle testing and deployment, arguing for school-zone restrictions, slower speeds, a remote kill switch, and minimum insurance requirements to protect the public. Representative Mendez and Senator Payano testified for legislation to reduce racial and socioeconomic inequities in auto insurance pricing by limiting the weight insurers may place on territorial loss costs, while the Mass Insurance Federation and Consumer Federation of America offered opposing and supporting views, respectively, on the fairness and actuarial impact of geographic rating. The committee also heard support for a bill to remove inspection-sticker violations from license-point calculations, and for a bill to raise the damage threshold for insurance surcharges and minor/major accident classifications. A substantial portion of the hearing addressed House Bill 1301 on rental car liability. Enterprise Mobility, the American Car Rental Association, and a small Massachusetts rental company supported the bill, saying personal auto insurers should be primary when their insureds drive rental cars, that Massachusetts is an outlier compared with most other states, and that the change would reduce costs and simplify claims handling. The Mass Insurance Federation opposed the bill, arguing that current Massachusetts law already clearly makes the vehicle owner’s policy primary and that shifting liability would raise costs for private-passenger policyholders. Committee members asked detailed questions about how rental coverage works, whether premiums or rental rates would change, and how other states handle the issue. The committee also heard testimony on a bill to adjust surcharge rules for at-fault accidents, with sponsors arguing that repair costs and vehicle values have risen sharply and that the current thresholds are outdated. Members discussed how the point system affects drivers, whether the proposal should apply cumulatively or per incident, and how Carfax and out-of-pocket repairs factor into consumer costs. At the end of the hearing, the chair noted written testimony could still be submitted and, during a brief personal privilege, recorded support for two underinsurance bills, H. 1109 and S. 748. The committee then moved and seconded a motion to adjourn, and the hearing ended without any votes on the bills themselves.

Transcript Highlights:

• But if closing could always be moved, what's how are you gonna calculate that?
• But that's not calculated in this fiscal impact. Is that correct? You for the question.
• Can you kind of show us how that calculation is?
• That's how much it costs the state of Oklahoma, but we're not calculating the man hours it takes, the
• Because they can afford actuaries to calculate what is the total amount that one would have to do in

Bills: HB2894, HB3418, HB3415, HB3413, HB3414, HB3416, HB3417, HB3419, HB3420, HB1739, HB1752, HB1979, HB2941, HB2992, HB3075, HB3086, HB3177, HB3269, HB3278, HB3279, HB3497, HB3644, HB4432, HB3720, HB3849, HB3882, HB3919, HB3941, HB4118, HB4141, HB4268, HB4342, HB4428, HB4429, HB4434

Keywords: HB2894, Oklahoma Rural Jobs Act, rural jobs, rural investment, tax credit, capital investment tax credit, state tax credits, economic development, rural fund, rural investor, qualified investment, eligible business, Department of Commerce, rural business, investment certification, tax liability, credit cap, workforce development, small business finance, rural development

Transcript Highlights:

• And this total award each year is calculated considering several factors.
• And we'll discuss how that amount is calculated a little bit later in this presentation.
• But the matrix calculates a per-student funding rate based on the cost of personnel and other resources
• But the matrix calculates a per student funding rate based on the cost of personnel and other resources
• In addition to these teachers and student support personnel, the matrix also calculates funding for one

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The House and Senate Education Committee first approved minutes from February 2 and 3, then heard an interim study proposal on Arkansas adult education, presented by Goodwill Industries of Arkansas and the Excel Center network. Witnesses described the state’s adult diploma gap, arguing that roughly 300,000 Arkansans over age 19 lack a high school diploma or GED and that the Excel Center provides a supported, diploma-based alternative with child care, transportation help, tutoring, and career services. Goodwill officials said the Arkansas campuses are the state’s only public adult charter high schools, are not state-funded, and have produced strong enrollment growth and graduation outcomes. A University of Notre Dame researcher testified that a study of Excel Center graduates found higher employment and earnings, more credential and college-credit attainment, and lower criminal justice involvement, with a high estimated return on public investment. Some members questioned the framing of Arkansas’s adult education challenges and whether the state was being portrayed too negatively, while others asked about wraparound services and the role of nonprofit providers. The committee ultimately adopted the interim study proposal, though there was some procedural confusion and debate about whether questions should have come before the vote. The committee then received a detailed Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Arkansas K-12 education funding as part of the adequacy study. Staff reviewed national funding principles and Arkansas’s funding structure, including state, local, and other revenues; the Public School Fund; Department of Education operations; and the Facilities Partnership Program. They explained that 2025 K-12 state and local revenues totaled about $6.6 billion, with foundation funding, categorical funding, supplemental funding, and additional funding distributed to districts and charters. The presentation covered the matrix used to calculate foundation funding, the role of the uniform rate of tax, the Educational Excellence Trust Fund, the Educational Adequacy Fund, and how charter schools are funded differently from traditional districts. Staff also discussed categorical programs such as alternative learning environments, English learner funding, enhanced student achievement, and professional development, as well as supplemental categories including transportation, special education high-cost occurrences, teacher salary equalization, declining enrollment, and student growth. Members asked numerous questions about the funding formulas, the meaning of specific staffing categories, how categorical funds are used, and the number of districts receiving teacher salary equalization or ALE funding. One member noted that the Excel Center’s funding appeared in the broader state-local totals and asked for clarification. Staff said some of the more detailed spending questions would be addressed in the next day’s presentation and offered to provide follow-up information, including district lists and historical changes. The meeting ended after the chair noted that the department was present mainly to answer questions, not to deliver a separate update, and no further business was taken up before adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• And this total award each year is calculated considering several factors.
• It also includes calculated projections in local property revenue growth to accurately fund state foundation
• And we'll discuss how that amount is calculated a little bit later in this presentation.
• But the matrix calculates a per-student funding rate based on the cost of personnel and other resources
• contribution rate noted here as the all-other personnel health insurance line will no longer be calculated

Summary: The House and Senate Education Committee first approved minutes from February 2 and 3, then heard an interim study proposal on Arkansas adult education and the Excel Center model, presented by Goodwill Industries of Arkansas and the University of Notre Dame’s Lab for Economic Opportunities. Witnesses argued that about 300,000 Arkansas adults lack a high school diploma or GED and described the Excel Center as a diploma-granting public charter option for adults 19 and older, with wraparound supports such as child care, transportation, tutoring, life coaching, and career services. They said the Arkansas campuses are not state-funded, highlighted growth in enrollment and graduation outcomes, and cited research showing improved employment, earnings, and reduced criminal justice involvement for graduates. Committee members discussed the role of Goodwill’s nonprofit mission, the need for multiple adult education pathways, and the relationship between adult education challenges and broader state efforts such as LEARNS and ACCESS. The committee then debated the interim study proposal procedure, including whether questions should have been taken before the vote. The motion to adopt the ISP passed, and members noted that the study would broadly examine adult education, GED testing, high school diplomas, charter schools, in-person adult education, and funding allocation. Several members asked for follow-up information on current adult education funding, the availability of Excel Centers, and the criminal justice study results. After that, staff from the Bureau of Legislative Research gave a detailed adequacy funding overview for Arkansas K-12 education. They reviewed national funding principles and then explained Arkansas’s revenue streams and distribution system, including general revenue, the Educational Excellence Trust Fund, the Educational Adequacy Fund, local property-tax revenues, and facilities partnership funding. They also walked through the state’s foundation formula, categorical aid, supplemental aid, and additional funding, including the per-student matrix amount of $7,771 for 2025 and how funds are allocated to districts and charters. Members asked about student support staff, special education high-cost occurrences, ALE funding, teacher salary equalization, and the Excel Center’s treatment in funding totals; staff said some of those questions would be addressed in a later spending presentation. The meeting ended after the committee was told the department was present mainly to answer questions and no further business remained.