Transcript Highlights:

• at this point in time as a $50 billion, $10 billion a year grant.
• . grant. grant. the<00:04:33.440><c> mechanics</c><00:04:34.080><c> of</c><00:04:34.320><c> how</c><00
• I've shared some elements to this grant.
• That's pretty typical for a federal grant.
• Some of these are typical limitations in federal grants; others are unique to this grant.

Summary: The Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board met on November 12, 2025, approved the October 22 minutes, and heard an update from Cabinet for Health and Family Services Secretary Steven Stack and Public Health Commissioner John Langfeld on Kentucky’s application for the federal rural health transformation grant. The presenters described the grant as a $50 billion, five-year program with annual CMS scoring and rescorings, no state appeal rights, and a December 31 deadline for CMS to announce awards. They said Kentucky submitted its application on November 3 and had gathered stakeholder comments earlier in the process. The testimony emphasized that the grant is intended to support new models of rural care rather than replace existing funding or pay for clinical services or lost hospital revenue. Officials said the state had to address at least three of five federal strategic goals, including prevention and chronic disease, sustainable access, workforce development, and care/technology innovation. They also reviewed restrictions such as no new building construction, no payment for monthly broadband costs, and a cap of 5% for electronic medical record-related spending. The presenters said CMS has been clear that funding should focus on innovation in care delivery, rural access, and related policy goals, and that the state’s award could vary year to year based on performance milestones. The meeting was interrupted by a building fire alarm and evacuation announcement before the presentation was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• , but they need to have that authority in the grant?
• grant yet.
• This is the highly rural transportation grant. The increase on that you're talking about? Grant?
• Grant, if I may.
• Grant, are you—I know we don't call you Representative Grant yet, so I don't know, have you got the history

Committee: House Appropriations - Human Resources Division

Summary: The committee took up Senate Bill 2025, the Veterans Home/Veterans Affairs budget, and worked through the long sheet line by line. Members discussed base payroll, salary and health insurance increases, FTE pool adjustments, IT rate increases, operating expenses, transportation grants, the PTSD service dog program, salary equity requests, temporary help/intern funding, a Veterans Benefit Specialist FTE, accrued leave, and several one-time or carryover items including the Fisher House, document scanning, and veterans medical transportation. The committee also reviewed proposed policy language that would shift governance authority for the Veterans Home and Department of Veterans Affairs from the Administrative Committee on Veterans Affairs to the governor, and would remove board authority over salary-setting and related hiring powers. A major portion of the meeting focused on clarifying the commissioner salary equity line and how the agency had shifted operating dollars to fund the commissioner’s current salary increase. After discussion with agency staff and Lonnie, the committee voted to remove the separate commissioner salary equity increase line and instead restore operating funding, ultimately setting the operating line at $50,000 above the prior amount rather than fully funding the executive request. The committee also approved funding for the Veterans Benefit Specialist FTE, approved a carryforward/exemption for accrued leave, approved authority to accept $200,000 in federal transportation grant funds, approved the $500,000 transfers related to veterans homelessness, and approved the exemption language for certain federal/state fiscal recovery funds after discussing whether the funds were properly obligated. On the governance amendment, members expressed concern about making a major policy change in an appropriations bill, but also frustration over the board’s salary actions. After debate, the committee adopted the amendment transferring governance authority to the governor by a 7-1 vote. The committee also approved a smaller amount for veteran service officer salary equity than requested, and rejected funding for temporary salaries and an intern. The chair then directed staff to prepare the amended bill for further action, with the committee planning to revisit it once the revised version was ready.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><00:04:18.320><c> management</c> no requirement for grants management no requirement for grants management
• That the Office of Grants Management.
• </c><00:04:36.320><c> Management,</c> OA, the Office of Grants Management, OA, the Office of Grants Management
• </c> hasn't been recognized by the grants hasn't been recognized by the grants manager,<00:11:50.560>
• And I think that get government grants.

Summary: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee Chair Kristen Robbins opened by criticizing the governor’s fraud package as too focused on new spending and staffing, and not enough on culture change, accountability, eligibility rules, and an enterprise-wide IT/data strategy. She said the committee had heard a good overview from multiple commissioners, but she remained concerned that piecemeal technology investments and added staff would not address the root causes of fraud. Robbins also said she would introduce a bill based on issues raised in committee, including requiring grants management staff to complete Office of Grants Management training and certification. A major action announced was the launch of a new whistleblower portal at mnfraud.com, which legislators said will let people submit basic fraud allegations, after which staff will follow up and forward matters to the Office of the Legislative Auditor, BCA, law enforcement, or the attorney general as appropriate. Members noted that the Office of the Legislative Auditor already has a separate reporting portal, and there was a question about why the new site does not allow anonymous reporting; Robbins said contact information is needed so staff can follow up. She also said the portal is intended to centralize and triage reports from agency workers, service recipients, and providers. Republican members said the governor’s proposal still misses key pieces. Vice Chair Anderson argued the package mostly adds staff to agencies that failed to catch or act on fraud, and said Minnesota needs a statewide independent inspector general with authority outside agencies and a stronger whistleblower system. Representative Marion Rarick said the proposed criminal penalty increases are too small compared with federal penalties and criticized the package for adding only one forensic auditor at the BCA while DHS receives many more positions. She also argued that agency managers should face sanctions when fraud occurs under their watch and said the state needs a culture where employees can be rewarded for good work but also held accountable for failures. Members discussed several other ideas, including creating new crimes for kickbacks and theft of public funds, requiring fraud fiscal notes, improving data sharing and eligibility verification, and using better IT so systems can talk to each other. There was also discussion of whether government services should rely less on nonprofits and private contractors; one member said fraud often follows a particular business model rather than the sector itself, while another suggested capping salaries of top nonprofit executives receiving government funds. The committee also noted that the governor’s fraud package is being presented as a package but will likely move as separate provisions through different omnibus bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• We granted 29. Nine new firm applications granted nine.
• </c> authority to award grants? authority to award grants?
• </c> requirements for a grant. requirements for a grant.
• </c> for grants? for grants? &gt;&gt; Um >> Um. >> Absolutely.
• Any of the grant without a grant.

Committee: Joint Appropriations

Transcript Highlights:

• say in the fine print that when the grant expires the jobs go away.
• say in the fine print that when the grant expires the jobs go away.
• say in the fine print that when the grant expires the jobs go away.
• say in the fine print that when the grant expires the jobs go away.
• that when the grant expires the jobs go away.

Summary: The Finance Committee met for an organizational opening session in which the chair, Ken Weyler, called the committee to order and members introduced themselves. The introductions established the committee’s leadership and membership, including Vice Chair Dan McGuire, ranking member Mary Jane Wallner, deputy ranking member Karen Eil, clerk Jerry Griffin, and other members from both parties. Many members briefly described prior legislative service and professional backgrounds, with several noting prior experience on Finance or related budget committees. Chair Weyler then outlined committee procedures and expectations. He emphasized that Finance handles spending bills and fiscal notes, that bills will generally be heard by the full committee and then referred to the appropriate division, and that executive sessions may be used to save time when positions are clear. He reviewed rules on attendance, dress, phones, paperwork handling, committee replacements, conflict of interest and recusal, and the process for testimony, including that members should listen without debating witnesses and that sponsors of bills must recuse themselves from questioning witnesses on their own bills. He also described the committee’s structure and workload, noting three divisions and the role of legislative budget staff. Weyler said the committee would likely see bills from many policy committees that have fiscal impacts, and he encouraged policy committees to find offsets within their own areas rather than assume new spending will be added. No bills were heard and no votes were taken during this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• We operate primarily with three federal grant programs.
• As the name suggests, this is a formula grant.
• The second federal grant that we use is a competitive grant that we apply for annually.
• The final federal grant we apply for is a Section 5339 bus and bus facilities grant, which funds our
• Our Section 5307 grant for 2025 was $2,176,599.

Summary: The Government Finance Transportation Study Subcommittee met to review fixed-route transit systems and related funding needs. After approving the prior meeting minutes, the committee heard presentations from Cities Area Transit in Grand Forks/East Grand Forks, Bisman Transit in Bismarck-Mandan, and MATBUS/Fargo, along with comments from North Dakota Protection & Advocacy. The transit agencies described their routes, paratransit services, ridership trends, fare structures, fleet replacement needs, and rising operating costs, emphasizing that transit supports access to work, school, medical care, and other essential services. Testimony also noted that ridership fell during the pandemic and has been recovering, while vehicle and maintenance costs have risen sharply. Grand Forks transit reported 17 routes, a recent fare increase, and operating costs that exceed fare revenue, with paratransit service extending beyond the federal minimum service area. Bisman Transit outlined its fixed-route and paratransit operations, recent service expansions, local mill levies, sales tax support, and federal grant structure, and said it is seeking more stable funding and flexibility beyond paratransit-only support. Minot’s transit superintendent explained the state’s existing transit aid formula, the use of refurbished buses, and the challenges of driver recruitment and electric bus infrastructure. Fargo asked for additional state support for fixed-route urban transit. Committee members discussed whether ride-share services could replace transit, the cost per trip, local match requirements, and whether a separate state funding source should be recommended for the four urban fixed-route systems. The subcommittee ultimately approved a motion to have Legislative Council prepare a summary of its activities for inclusion in the full Government Finance Committee report, and members indicated they would seek more detailed funding figures from the transit agencies before making any specific recommendation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We operate primarily with three federal grant programs.
• As the name suggests, this is a formula grant.
• The second federal grant that we use is a competitive grant that we apply for annually.
• The final federal grant we apply for is a Section 5339 bus and bus facilities grant, which funds our
• Our Section 5307 grant for 2025 was $2,176,599.

Summary: The committee met as a study subcommittee on fixed-route public transportation and first approved the December 11 minutes. It then heard detailed presentations from transit leaders in Grand Forks, Bismarck/Mandan, and Fargo about their systems, including route structures, paratransit service, ridership trends, fare changes, funding sources, fleet replacement needs, and operational challenges. Grand Forks described Cities Area Transit’s 17 routes, university shuttle service, expanded paratransit coverage, a 2025 fare increase, and rising costs for labor, fuel, parts, and new buses. Bismarck/Mandan’s Bisman Transit outlined its fixed-route and paratransit operations, recent service expansions approved for April 1, fare structure, ridership recovery since COVID, and major funding streams including mill levies, federal grants, and new local sales tax revenue. Fargo’s MATBUS representative emphasized the importance of continued state support for urban fixed-route transit. Members asked extensive questions about cost per ride, fare increases, school transportation, veteran service partnerships, app-based ticketing, local funding formulas, and whether ride-share or microtransit could replace fixed routes. Transit officials said fixed-route service remains essential because it provides reliable capacity, supports jobs and access to services, and preserves federal funding tied to public transit operations. They also said paratransit is costly but necessary for riders with disabilities, and that vehicle and maintenance costs have risen sharply. Minot’s transit superintendent added context on the state’s existing transit aid formula, explaining that it is weighted more toward rural and paratransit providers and that urban fixed-route systems are seeking a separate, dedicated funding source rather than changes to the current formula. The committee also heard public testimony from North Dakota Protection & Advocacy supporting both fixed-route and paratransit service for disabled riders, and from Minot staff on refurbished buses, CDL driver recruitment, and why the agency is not pursuing full electric buses. Near the end, members discussed whether to recommend additional state funding for the four urban fixed-route systems. A motion passed to have Legislative Council prepare a summary of the subcommittee’s activities for inclusion in the Government Finance Committee’s report to Legislative Management. Members then continued discussing possible recommendations, including a separate funding source for urban fixed-route transit and whether the four urban systems should meet to develop a proposed amount.

Transcript Highlights:

• for State grant program but eligibility for State grant program but clarifies<00:52:26.640><c> that<
• </c> teach Minnesota cannot apply for Grants teach Minnesota cannot apply for Grants but<00:52:38.680
• <00:54:05.359><c> that</c><00:54:05.480><c> work</c> grants that work grants that work together<00:54
• </c> some of these programs are Grant some of these programs are Grant repayment<00:57:18.640><c> for
• marketing campaign grant to MDE.

Committee: House Education Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• Specifically, all grants are assessed for risk—every single grant financial risk.
• the program versus this grant makes me feel safe.
• This current grant cycle will end 6/30/26.
• That grant will end 9/30/26.
• The funding source is the grant program itself.

Committees: House Education , House House Education Committee of Reference

Transcript Highlights:

• The project includes the construction of a... and grant reallocations requiring action and grant reallocations
• </c> and light item sewer and water grants and light item sewer and water grants requiring<00:25:16.400
• The Grant County Sanit Sanitary meeting.
• > KIA</c><00:29:12.000><c> through</c><00:29:12.240><c> the</c> EPA grants to KIA through the EPA grants
• </c> federal grant conditions. federal grant conditions.

Summary: The meeting began with routine business, including a quorum call, approval of the April minutes, and several informational reports. Those information items covered upcoming general obligation debt for Bullitt, Jefferson, and Warren counties; Kentucky Communications Network Authority updates tied to House Bill 6; Eastern Kentucky University asset preservation reallocations under House Bill 1; and School Facilities Construction Commission debt activity, including 20 prior debt issues totaling about $386 million with roughly 85% locally supported debt service and 15% SFCC participation. Members then discussed concerns about a Kentucky Communications Network Authority project, focusing on a reported discrepancy between an appropriation of $12.927 million and an apparent payment of about $8.532 million on a project with a cost estimate of $12.449 million. Several members asked for more detailed written information before the next Capital Projects meeting, noting that a lawsuit is pending and that they wanted to better understand the basis for the request and the spending to date. The committee also heard and unanimously approved a donor-funded Northern Kentucky University project to renovate tennis courts, with possible pickleball additions, after questions about why approval was needed, the project’s estimated $3 million cost, and its expected minimal ongoing operating costs. The committee next received Kentucky State University pool allocation reports for three projects: a $2 million McCullen Hall renovation, a $1.75 million walkway and miscellaneous repairs project, and a $2 million academic services building roof-and-window project. A member asked specifically about curb cuts and accessibility in the walkway project, and Kentucky State said existing curb cuts would be repaired and additional accessibility issues would be reviewed by engineers. The lease report from the Finance and Administration Cabinet included one lease modification requiring approval for the Attorney General’s office in Franklin County and one no-action modification for the Board of Cosmetology; the Attorney General lease was approved by roll call vote. Finally, the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority presented five loans and 37 grants, with action taken on the loan and grant items. The loans included a Hodgenville wastewater treatment plant increase, a Grant County sewer district treatment plant loan, a Mount Sterling dam rehabilitation loan, and two Morganfield drinking water loans for granular activated carbon treatment, one with full principal forgiveness. Members asked about the Morganfield project’s purpose and were told it was a remediation effort for a water-quality concern, and they also raised questions about engineering fees, which KIA said are compared against a U.S. Rural Development fee schedule that is industry accepted. The committee also reviewed cleaner water program grant reallocations from county allocation pools.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> it's not all state funding, it's grant it's not all state funding, it's grant funding<00:15:51.680
• </c><01:49:52.239><c> So</c> not getting their grant money. So not getting their grant money.
• </c> grant money. grant money.
• Um, adequacy<02:03:22.000><c> grants,</c> adequacy grants, adequacy grants, if<02:03:23.679><c> that's
• </c> capacity disparity grants. capacity disparity grants.

Committee: House Education Funding

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met in executive session and reviewed several previously heard bills, but focused its discussion on SB 586 and SB 580. The chair explained that SB 586 would require school districts and school administrative units to publish audit reports after the fiscal year, and that an amendment, 1472H, had been prepared to replace the relevant audit/reporting section. The amendment would add SAUs to the reporting entities, expand the contents of audits to include items such as employee lists, pay, benefits, and pension liabilities, and change the timing so audits are submitted nine months after the fiscal year end, followed by a three-month Department of Education review and then a further correction period before any grant funding could be withheld. The amendment would also require the reports to be posted in searchable electronic form on the web. Committee members discussed whether the bill’s “non-compliance” language referred only to incomplete submissions or also to audit findings, and several members raised concerns about whether the Department of Education had the staff and authority to take on this role, whether the existing DOE25 process would be displaced, and whether the bill should instead remain with the Department of Revenue Administration. One member noted that the fiscal note anticipated the need for additional auditors and significant staffing costs. The committee also reviewed SB 580, described as a school cooperative purchasing program bill that also contains policy provisions for charter school trustees, school board members, and receivership-related language tied to Claremont. The chair said the committee had previously heard comments from Charlie Arlinghouse on the cooperative purchasing portion and would use a side-by-side comparison prepared by staff when it reached that bill. Other bills on the docket were briefly described but not taken up that day: SB 491, which has committee-requested amendments and a separate non-germane amendment related to curriculum frameworks and academic standards; SB 513, an owner’s project manager bill held as a possible vehicle for future non-germane language; and SB 531, concerning a cosmetology program in Coös County and a possible task force. The chair said the committee would not address 491, 513, or 531 that day and would return to 580 and 586.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:38:59.520><c> um</c> nonprofits and both are for Grants um nonprofits and both are for Grants
• </c> they are organized first by the grants they are organized first by the grants that<01:40:57.920>
• grant, and then develop a budget for the grant.
• 43:02.400><c> that</c><01:43:02.520><c> Grant</c> for the grant and I'll note that Grant for the grant
• </c> the grant the grant agreement<01:43:26.880><c> typically</c><01:43:27.880><c> grantees</c><01:43

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Transcript Highlights:

• How many grant organizations do we have now?
• What is the administrative cost to these nonprofits for granting those grants?
• So, if organizations can still apply to be A grant awarding one advantage to having granting entities
• So, you have the grant, the ones that dispersed the grants and decide where the money goes.
• We did apply for a grant through TSet.

Committee: House A&B Health Subcommittee

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the planning grants are not necessarily required.
• Of those, 3,661 schools do not have a grant.
• are five-year grants.
• That did not go through the existing competitive grant process.
• The first bullet point on that grant award notification for county coordination grant funding is for

Transcript Highlights:

• I think the planning grants are not necessarily required.
• Of those, 3,661 schools do not have a grant.
• five-year grants.
• That did not go through the existing competitive grant process.
• The first bullet point on that grant award notification for county coordination grant funding is for

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Education Finance held a hearing on the Governor’s proposal to convert the California Community Schools Partnership Program from a one-time grant model into an ongoing $1 billion Proposition 98 program. Finance and CDE described the expansion as a way to sustain existing community schools and add thousands more, with county offices, regional/state technical assistance centers, annual self-certification, and a future accreditation process intended to support fidelity to the state framework. The LAO opposed shifting to an ongoing categorical program and recommended continuing one-time grants, while suggesting longer-term funding for technical assistance and, if ongoing funding is adopted, stronger planning, reporting, phased expansion, and clearer accreditation timelines. Committee members pressed the administration on how the new proposal could fund far more schools with less money than the original $4.1 billion program, how much of the funding would go to existing cohorts versus new schools, and whether the proposal sufficiently requires planning and implementation before funds are received. Testimony from practitioners and advocates largely supported ongoing funding but emphasized that money alone is not enough. Speakers from LPI, CTA, San Diego Unified, Fresno County, the Partnership for the Future of Learning, and Sacramento County urged stronger requirements for shared governance, explicit commitment to the community schools framework, annual reporting beginning in year one, and continued or expanded support for coordinators and technical assistance. Several witnesses said the proposal should better protect county office coordination roles, maintain preferences for partnerships in the technical assistance structure, and ensure the system can support more than 6,000 schools. Others highlighted the need for specialized supports for middle and high schools, better integration with other state programs such as ELOP, universal meals, TK, and the LCFF equity multiplier, and more detailed accountability and accreditation processes. No formal vote was taken during the portion of the hearing reflected in the transcript. The chair indicated that the committee wanted additional information on the funding breakdown, the use of reverted funds, and the proposed support structure before taking action, and administration witnesses said a more detailed proposal would be brought forward in the May Revise.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill specifies that participation in the grant program and receipt of grant monies does not limit
• You're ineligible for the grant program.
• The upfront is such as like a grant, similar to a grant program, to stand up the program. ...toward this
• The upfront is such as like a grant, similar to a grant program, to stand up the program, and then depending
• Funds for the SPARC Act grant program are to come from federal funds, grants, gifts, and donations, and

Summary: The committee first suspended the five-day notice rule and then heard House Bill 2521 on firearm background check fees. Staff explained that the bill would remove the $18 fee cap and allow Washington State Patrol to set fees based on actual program costs, which could be about $33 to $35 per check. Supporters said the change was needed to keep the background check system operating and avoid delays and layoffs; opponents argued it would burden lawful gun owners and amount to an unconstitutional tax or barrier to a constitutional right. No vote was taken in the hearing. Members then heard Substitute House Bill 2475 on language-accessible public programs, which would direct the Office of Equity to develop uniform language-access guidelines, address interpreter and translator shortages, and require agency implementation reporting. Testimony was strongly supportive, emphasizing the need for consistent access for limited-English-proficient residents and the benefits for schools, families, and state services. The committee also heard Second Substitute House Bill 2479 on wage recovery, which would create a wage recovery fund to provide partial advance payments to low-wage workers with meritorious unpaid wage claims and adjust wage penalty provisions. Employers, labor advocates, and legal services representatives largely supported the bill as a bipartisan, worker-protection measure funded by penalties rather than the general fund. The committee next took up Engrossed Third Substitute House Bill 1960 on renewable energy tax incentives, which would replace existing property tax and excise tax provisions with a new state and local renewable energy excise tax structure and related grant programs for local governments and tribes. Counties, utilities, developers, and tribal representatives generally supported the bill’s goal of stabilizing tax treatment for renewable projects, though several witnesses said they wanted amendments to address rates, timing, and late-stage project impacts. The committee also heard Substitute Senate Bill 5932 on alternative jet fuel incentives, which would change the timing and duration of existing tax preferences; supporters said it would provide certainty for emerging sustainable aviation fuel projects, while one refinery sought clarification and a broader county threshold. Later, the committee heard Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2238 on statewide food security, directing the Department of Agriculture to monitor food system performance and develop a statewide food security strategy. Agricultural groups, grocers, anti-hunger advocates, and farmers supported the bill as a coordination effort to improve food access, affordability, and supply chain resilience. The committee then heard Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1903, which would create a statewide low-income energy assistance program through the Department of Commerce; supporters said it would address growing unmet need and complement existing utility programs, while opponents said it did not address the root causes of rising energy costs. Finally, the committee heard Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2416 on waste-to-energy facilities under the Climate Commitment Act and Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 2515 on large energy-use facilities (data centers), both of which drew mixed testimony centered on balancing emissions, ratepayer impacts, reliability, and environmental or tribal concerns. No final votes were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first grant this relates to is the CanRenew Grant.
• The first grant this relates to is the CanRenew Grant.
• The first grant this relates to is the CanRenew Grant.
• The first grant this relates to is the CanRenew Grant.
• The first grant this relates to is the CanRenew Grant.

Committee: Senate Commerce and Consumer Protection

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> per</c> out by Grant versus non-grant and per out by Grant versus non-grant and per student<01:04
• What happened to grants?
• What happened to grants?
• What happened to grants?
• ><c> that</c> through grants through grants again that through grants through grants again that I<05:

Summary: The committee heard a presentation from the University System of New Hampshire chancellor on the system’s budget, enrollment, finances, workforce role, and response to federal policy changes. The chancellor said the governor’s recommended budget would reduce university system funding by about $16.5 million over the biennium, or roughly 8.3%, and asked that state funding be held at the governor’s level. She described planned cost reductions already underway, including lower headcount, reduced benefits and retirement contributions, property sales, and lease reductions, and said the system expects to remove about $20 million from its cost structure in fiscal year 2026. A large portion of the discussion focused on enrollment and finances. The chancellor said fall 2024 enrollment was about 23,000, with New Hampshire enrollment increasing for the first time since 2013, and noted that the system remains a major workforce pipeline, with about 3,000 graduates entering the state workforce each year. She explained that net tuition has fallen over time because of declining enrollment and increased financial aid, while research grants and contracts have grown significantly. She also walked through endowment funding, explaining that payouts are based on a 12-quarter rolling average and are intentionally smoothed to reduce volatility; members asked for follow-up information on payout comparisons, administrative salaries, headcounts, and compensation per student. Members questioned the university about the relationship between state support, tuition, endowments, and research spending. The chancellor said the system has used state capital support to leverage major investments, including the UNH Life Sciences building, Plymouth’s Hyde Hall, and the Olson Advanced Manufacturing Center, and described partnerships with businesses such as Lonza and regional manufacturers. She also explained a long-running New Hampshire 529-related revenue stream that has built endowment support for scholarships, and said the system’s endowment now totals about $988 million. In response to questions about possible cuts, she said the system is considering academic program sharing, consolidation of specialties, online delivery, AI-assisted administrative efficiencies, and footprint reductions, but declined to name specific programs. The committee also discussed DEI-related issues and federal grants. The chancellor said the system is reviewing executive orders and a U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague letter, and that general counsel is working through websites, programs, and more than 1,200 federal grants to ensure compliance. She said the system spends about $3 million on what it calls DEI-related offices and services, but emphasized that these services include disability support, veteran support, Title IX, ADA, and employment-law compliance, and that the system does not have race-based programs, separate housing, or separate graduation ceremonies. She reported that the system had received stop-work orders on four federal grants totaling about $700,000 and warned that reductions in federal direct or indirect costs could affect research, jobs, and innovation.

Transcript Highlights:

• would take the principles from the cyber security world of vendor risk management and apply them to grant
• It doesn't necessarily preclude a potential grantee from receiving the grant, but it does give the granting
• It doesn't necessarily preclude a potential grantee from receiving the grant, but it does give the granting
• It doesn't necessarily preclude a potential grantee from receiving the grant, but it does give the granting
• the the granting organization give the the the granting organization some<00:02:04.079><c> tools</c>

Transcript Highlights:

• process, and grants will be based upon a comprehensive need assessment for autism spectrum disorder
• , other contributions and as grants, other contributions and appropriations<00:03:01.360><c> and</c><
• a competitive grant process and grants<00:03:51.840><c> will</c><00:03:52.080><c> be</c><00:03:52.239
• ><c> based</c><00:03:52.560><c> upon</c><00:03:53.040><c> a</c> grants will be based upon a grants will
• If the entity felt it was a good use of the money, then they would receive the grant. Very well.

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up only one item: Senate Bill 69, sponsored by Senator Julie Adams. The bill would create an autism spectrum disorder trust fund in the state treasury, allow taxpayers to contribute a portion of their individual income tax refunds to the fund, and authorize additional grants, contributions, and appropriations. Senator Adams said the fund is intended to support autism spectrum disorder research and services in Kentucky, administered by the Cabinet for Health and Family Services with grants awarded through the advisory council on autism spectrum disorders based on a statewide needs assessment. She also noted the bill includes an emergency clause. During questions, Senator Boswell confirmed the tax refund contribution option would be available on both paper and electronic returns. Senator Funky From asked how families would access services, and Senator Adams explained that providers would apply for grants to the trust fund, which would then review and award funding if the proposal was deemed a good use of the money. No outside testimony was presented; a signed-up witness from the Russell County Fiscal Court did not speak. The committee then moved the bill, with Senator Boswell making the motion and Senator Neil seconding it. The roll call resulted in 12 yes votes and no nays, and Senate Bill 69 passed the committee with a favorable expression. The committee then adjourned.