Transcript Highlights:

• That's reviewed by other psychologists there with expertise.
• And then that leads potentially to the en banc and review process.
• And then that leads potentially to the en banc and review process.
• That's something that you just review.
• I'm sure that if we were to review every one of your decisions, I'm sure if you were to review your own

Committee: Senate Rules

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that when we do have that record of decision, they can actually begin reviewing it.
• They cannot review it until we have that ROD.
• They have up to 30 days, we understand, to review and respond with our determination.
• And they have up to 30 days we understand to review and respond with our determination.
• Ray had mentioned earlier our legal sufficiency review.

Committee: Joint Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee

Summary: The Joint Oregon-Washington Legislative Action Committee met for a work session and public hearing on the Interstate 5 bridge replacement program. Program staff outlined major milestones, including the recent biological opinion, the Coast Guard’s opening of a public comment period on the Navigation Impact Report, expected decisions in early 2026 on navigational clearance and the final supplemental environmental impact statement, and a possible amended record of decision in 2026. They also discussed the Bridge Investment Program grant amendment deadline, the need for an initial finance plan, and ongoing community outreach and contractor engagement. Greg Johnson announced he was stepping down as program administrator, and Carly Francis introduced herself as interim administrator. A large portion of the meeting focused on design and cost questions. Staff said the program is studying fixed and movable spans, single- and double-deck configurations, and one versus two auxiliary lanes, with final recommendations to be made through the federal environmental process. They said the Coast Guard’s decision is central to what bridge configuration is permittable and to the timing of the updated cost estimate, which has not yet been released. Members pressed for more detail on cost drivers, potential impacts to businesses upriver, and whether the states would need to seek additional funding. Staff said they had reached agreements with four impacted river users, but the underlying evaluation materials are protected and not publicly releasable. The committee also reviewed transit-related questions. Staff explained that light rail remains part of the modified locally preferred alternative and that ridership and operations estimates are being updated using federal modeling methods. They said projected opening-day transit operations and maintenance costs have dropped from an earlier estimate of $21.8 million to about $10.3 million annually because the current model assumes lower frequency, with Oregon and Washington shares split by geography and fare recovery. Members raised concerns about TriMet’s financial stability and the need for a funding plan by fall 2027, ahead of a planned federal transit funding application in fall 2028. During public testimony, several speakers criticized the delay in releasing a new cost estimate and argued the project scope should be reduced if costs continue to rise. Testifiers from City Observatory and the Just Crossing Alliance said the project appears to be avoiding bad news, urged the committee to consider scope reductions, and questioned whether the active transportation and freeway components align with the project’s core purpose. The meeting ended with thanks to Johnson for his service and a transition to public hearing testimony.

Transcript Highlights:

• You can impose a prepayment review.
• So, we are in the prepayment review.
• What was your job taking on this review.
• Lead Pinto. and the state agency has reviewed all and the state agency has reviewed all allegations,<
• </c> it's only after the agency reviews it's only after the agency reviews everything<01:40:43.760><c

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And first up to testify review process.
• Um, and then this environmental review.
• Our environmental review generations.
• </c><02:12:55.920><c> uh</c><02:12:56.079><c> in</c> peer-review studies on methane. uh in peer-review
• I published in peer-reviewed literature.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing covered three measures. SB 1602 would appropriate funds to DLNR for monitoring wells for the Koho aquifer system; DLNR and HHFDC supported it, and written testimony from several organizations and individuals was also in support. Members asked whether monitoring wells are a statewide function rather than a county function, and staff confirmed they are done statewide. The second bill was an administration measure clarifying that criminal water pollution enforcement remains with the Department of Health rather than DLNR. The Attorney General’s office said it was a cleanup clarification and that DOH has stronger enforcement powers and better testing capability; DOH and DLNR supported it, and there was no opposition noted. The final and most heavily debated measure was SB 1074 on environmental impact statements. The bill would let previously authorized or permitted commercial activities continue for up to one year while an agency determines whether environmental review applies after a challenge, and would allow permit renewals during that review. DLNR said it stood on written comments and suggested aligning the bill with similar House language. Supporters, including several ocean tourism and Maui business representatives, argued the bill would provide certainty and keep families and small operators working while environmental review is completed, especially in the wake of the Lahaina fires and ongoing business losses. Some supporters said the measure should be narrowed with a sunset or limited to recently renewed permits. Opponents, including the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, and other environmental advocates, argued the bill was overly broad and could weaken HEPA/NEPA-style environmental review, especially for fisheries and other commercial activities. They said the bill could be used as a “Trojan horse” to avoid review and that DLNR could resolve the underlying disputes more quickly through settlement or existing exemption processes. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> and</c> We reviewed grant agreements and We reviewed grant agreements and amendments.<00:05:09.680
• </c><00:09:20.640><c> agreements</c> We We reviewed 55 grant agreements We We reviewed 55 grant agreements
• ><c> individual</c> Specifically, we reviewed 44 individual Specifically, we reviewed 44 individual grant
• </c> for their participation in the review for their participation in the review and<00:43:55.600><c>
• </c> managers did not document their review managers did not document their review of<00:54:36.840><c

Committee: House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• It's similar to the child death review.
• So this is a pilot program, right, to be reviewed again at a certain time.
• The child review is different. And adults and everything. The child review is different.
• And that's different than the child review. Representative Pogemiller, you're recognized.
• So you figure out those that they will review.

Bills: HB3287 , HB2947 , HB3784 , HB3901 , HB4275

Committee: House Public Health

Keywords: public health, domestic violence, human trafficking, healthcare facilities, hospital protocols, behavioral health, Medicaid expansion, clinical interns, mental health services, licensing requirements, micropigmentation, medical procedure, physician oversight, nursing certification, state regulations, psychological autopsy, mental health, suicide prevention, state health department, investigation

Summary: The Public Health Committee met for its first session and laid over House Bills 3884 and 4410. The committee then heard and advanced several bills. HB 3287 would require hospitals to post discreet notices in areas like X-ray, CAT scan, MRI, or bathrooms telling victims of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, or human trafficking how to alert staff and ensuring they are not discharged before appropriate reporting occurs; members discussed whether to include a phone number, and the bill passed 5-0. HB 2947 would allow clinics to bill Medicaid for services provided by master’s-level mental health interns working under supervision in accredited programs, with supporters saying it could help address rural workforce shortages; questions focused on supervision, liability, whether it would be limited to Medicaid, fiscal impact, and how many interns might participate, and it passed 5-0. The committee also considered HB 3784, as amended by a PCS, which would let permanent makeup artists come out from under physician oversight after three years of experience, while preserving supervision if they use prescription medications such as topical anesthetics; after clarification about the PCS, it passed 5-0. HB 3901 would create a psychological autopsy position in the Department of Health to review suicides and overdoses through voluntary family interviews and records review to improve prevention efforts; members raised questions about cost, whether the work should be housed elsewhere, the pilot nature of the proposal, and what data are currently collected, and it passed 5-0. Finally, HB 4275 would allow case managers and peer support specialists to be employed by cities and counties while keeping their certification, and it also passed 5-0. The meeting ended with adjournment and a notice that the committee would meet again the following Wednesday morning at 9:00.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is that with respect to the review by the Legislature? number of yard sales.
• Is that with respect to the review by the Legit. Could not do so for eight years.
• Is that with respect to the review by the Legislature every eight years? Mr.
• But we do have an eight-year time frame for all of the rules in the Tax Commission to be reviewed.
• So I'm going to try and review that, and maybe we can get together.

Committee: House Revenue and Taxation

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Again, just sort of a visual to show you the cost of not reviewing mandates.
• So we have a very comprehensive review of the evidence of what should be covered.
• So we have a very comprehensive review of the evidence of what should be covered.
• Fascinating review of these mandates.
• This review is completed quarterly.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review the history and current treatment of North Dakota health insurance mandates, with presentations from Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota, Sanford Health Plan, the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), and the Insurance Department. The discussion focused on how mandates apply differently to fully insured, self-funded, ACA, Medicaid, and PERS plans; how the state’s benchmark plan and federal essential health benefits affect coverage; and how the existing process requires cost-benefit analysis and, for certain measures, a PERS pilot period before broader application. Presenters also reviewed the long list of existing state mandates, including provider, beneficiary, and coverage requirements, and noted that many were enacted decades ago and have not been revisited despite changes in medical evidence and treatment options. Witnesses from the carriers argued that mandates should be reviewed periodically because some are outdated, can create unintended costs, and may not align with current medical guidance. Examples cited included PSA screening, off-label drug coverage, prior authorization rules, step therapy, and cost-sharing provisions for mental health and substance use treatment. They emphasized that carriers often cover services without a mandate when supported by clinical evidence, and that mandates can shift costs to employers and employees, especially in the fully insured small-group market. They also suggested possible policy improvements such as clearer mandate definitions, better transparency around cost-benefit analyses, a regular 10-year review of mandates, and more timely submission of proposals through the interim process. PERS and the Insurance Department highlighted a recurring tension over what counts as a mandate and when a measure triggers the state’s defrayal obligation under federal law. PERS described its interim committee process, the April 1 deadline for fiscal-impact proposals, and the limited pilot program used for certain measures, noting that only a few bills have gone through the full pilot process. The Insurance Department explained that it views new benefit mandates through the lens of the ACA benchmark plan and essential health benefits, distinguishing true new benefits, such as infertility coverage, from changes to existing benefits, such as telehealth or insulin cost-sharing caps. No votes were taken on policy changes; the meeting was informational, with members asking questions about costs, applicability, transparency, and whether a periodic mandate review should be established.

Transcript Highlights:

• A CEQA review of the project attempted to outline the consequences of these practices, but it failed
• them and commenting on them after we review them with our counties.
• On first glance, these ...them and commenting on them after we review them with our counties.
• We look forward to reviewing the new language. Thank you. Thank you so much.
• So the Commission doesn't have policy concerns with shortening the timeline for review?

Summary: The committee heard several climate, environmental, and housing bills. AB 1425, dealing with pit dewatering near the San Joaquin River Parkway, drew extensive testimony. The author and supporters argued the bill was needed to protect the river, groundwater, floodplain conditions, tribal and cultural resources, and public access from a proposed mining project near the river. Opponents, including Cemex, labor representatives, and industry groups, said the bill would bypass the CEQA process before it was complete, threaten jobs, and create uncertainty for an existing operation. Members questioned both sides about hydrology, blasting, dewatering, and the adequacy of the ongoing environmental review. The bill was moved, but several members expressed concern about preempting CEQA and some did not vote or voted no. AB 881, which would allow California to move forward with carbon capture and sequestration pipelines, was presented as a way to advance state climate goals and capture federal funding. Supporters, including SMUD, labor, and industry groups, said the bill would help deploy carbon capture safely and preserve jobs. Environmental justice opponents supported stronger safety direction and warned that CO2 pipelines pose serious risks and that the state should not move ahead without clearer standards. The bill received a due-pass recommendation to Appropriations. AB 1207, on the cap-and-trade allowance price ceiling and the social cost of carbon, was presented as a science-based update to California’s climate policy. The author and EDF said the bill would keep the program aligned with current economic and climate data and protect it from federal political interference. It received broad support and a due-pass recommendation. AB 1106, creating a coordinated network of air quality incident response centers, was also approved after testimony about wildfire smoke, toxic emissions, and the need for better real-time monitoring during disasters. AB 28, the Landfill Fire Safety Act, focused on the Chiquita Canyon landfill fire and related health impacts in Castaic and Val Verde; residents described serious illnesses and contamination concerns, while landfill and county representatives warned about costs and asked for more study. The committee nonetheless advanced the bill with a due-pass recommendation. The committee also heard AB 357, which would speed Coastal Commission review of student and faculty housing projects, with supporters citing student homelessness and opponents urging caution but acknowledging the need for more housing; the bill was presented and discussed, with the committee emphasizing the need to balance housing production and coastal oversight.

Transcript Highlights:

• and acceptance by said County for review and acceptance by said County and<00:01:56.280><c> such</c>
• </c> adequacy site development reviews adequacy site development reviews building<00:02:38.360><c> permits
• We provided some of the key findings in there in the testimony so you folks can review that again.
• </c><00:30:21.080><c> that</c> testimony so you folks can review that testimony so you folks can review
• We provided some of the key findings in there in the testimony so you folks can review that again.

Committee: Senate Government Operations

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee met on February 4, 2025, for decision making on previously heard measures, then later held hearings on additional bills. Early action focused on several measures that were amended and advanced, including SB 161 on state project exemptions from county permitting, which was heavily revised to allow programmatic or project-specific agreements with counties, require public reporting of exempted projects, and create a working group to study broader permitting and construction coordination issues. The committee also advanced SB 635 on energy efficiency with changes shifting survey leadership to the Hawaii State Energy Office, SB 700 on resilience hubs after narrowing it to focus on emergency-service-capable hubs and removing distributed energy language, SB 869 on community outreach boards with a technical amendment, SB 1081 on a legislative budget office by converting it to a feasibility study, SB 711 on gubernatorial appointments with a salary threshold change, SB 405 on neighborhood board agendas with a committee-report note about OIP concerns, SB 381 with privacy issues deferred to Judiciary, SB 2 as a two-year pilot for fruit tree planting in selected districts, SB 239 on disaster preparedness with sheltering revisions, and SB 998 as introduced with a cost estimate for site selection work. Several measures were deferred or not advanced, including SB 615, which was deferred indefinitely, SB 1132, which the chair said would be set aside in favor of another childcare bill, and SB 111, which was not taken up further because of confusion during an earlier hearing. During the later hearing portion, SB 1175 on procurement drew testimony from the State Procurement Office, which supported the bill but corrected its estimated database revision cost from $7,500 to $30,000; the Department of Transportation also appeared, while the General Contractors Association submitted opposition. Committee members questioned whether the past-performance database should include more detailed quality information and whether a one-year post-completion review would be useful, but no amendment was adopted at that time. SB 1587 on retainage received written support from the Subcontractors Association of Hawaii and no opposition in the room. SB 1543 on government accountability, which would require justification for outside consultants and cap consultant spending, drew opposition from the American Council of Engineering Companies of Hawaii, which argued it could slow procurement, reduce flexibility, and worsen delays given existing vacancies and limited in-house expertise. The Public First Law Center supported the related transparency bill discussed in the hearing, arguing it would close a loophole by making contractor-created records used in government functions subject to disclosure under UIPA, while the Attorney General’s office opposed it. The transcript ends with that testimony still underway, and no final vote is shown for the later hearing bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think from last year and this year we're talking a serious look about doing that in the budget review
• I think from last year and this year we're talking a serious look about doing that in the budget review
• I think from last year and this year we're talking a serious look about doing that in the budget review
• I think from last year and this year we're talking a serious look about doing that in the budget review
• I think from last year and this year we're talking a serious look about doing that in the budget review

Keywords: Meeting start 00:00:00 Roll Call 00:00:15 HB 537 Discussion 00:01:30 HB 537 Vote 00:05:15 HB 695 Discussion 00:07:00 HB 695 Vote 00:23:15 HJR 31 Discussion 00:27:40 HJR 31 Vote 00:29:55, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 537, as amended by PHS 1, which was described as a technical measure needed to ensure Kentucky can receive opioid settlement funds despite changes in bankruptcy court orders. The sponsor and Attorney General’s office explained that the bill does not change the settlement formula or substantive terms, but adjusts the mechanism for receiving the money. After brief discussion, the committee adopted PHS 1 and then passed HB 537 out favorably on a 17-0 vote, with one member recording attendance after arriving late. The committee then considered House Bill 695, also amended by PHS 1, a Medicaid stabilization bill. The sponsor said the measure is intended to hold the program steady while the legislature gathers more information and awaits work by a future Medicaid Oversight and Advisory Board. The bill would limit new waivers, state plan amendments, and coverage expansions; require reporting and record retention; create a Kentucky Medicaid Pharmaceutical Rebate Fund; direct certain behavioral health and managed care changes; and include an emergency clause. Members raised questions about the rebate fund, work requirements, and whether the bill could affect coverage or funding, while supporters emphasized transparency, data collection, and preventing new expansions until oversight is in place. Several members spoke in favor of the bill’s goals but expressed caution about micromanaging a complex program and about possible unintended consequences for beneficiaries. Representative Fleming stressed the need for stronger oversight and noted the potential fiscal impact of federal Medicaid changes. Representative Stevenson voted pass, saying the committee should let the new oversight board handle the issue, and Representative Gentry also passed, citing concern about overreach and the burden of data collection. The committee ultimately reported HB 695 favorably on a 16-1 vote with three pass votes. Afterward, members recorded additional yes votes on HB 537 for the record.

Transcript Highlights:

• At this time, I'd like to turn the meeting over to our Vice Chair, Senator Bjerke, for the review of
• The meeting over to our Vice Chair, Senator Bjerke, for the review of our administrative roll dockets
• They can be found on page 448 through page 452 of your legislative review book.
• To repeal docket number 24-0901-2501, starting on page 437 of your legislative review book.
• I will be happy to review it again or respond to any questions the committee may have.

Committee: Senate Health and Welfare

Keywords: 989, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A REVIEW OF THE CATASTROPHIC REFUND PROCESS THAT EXISTS IN THE STATUTE NOW IN A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION
• BUT BY APRIL 1 THE PROPERTY APPRAISER MUST REVIEW THAT FORM AND NOTIFY THE TAXPAYER WHETHER THE APPROVE
• THE TAX COLLECTOR REVIEWS THAT IN REVIEWS THE STATUS OF PAYMENT.
• THE TAX COLLECTOR WILL REVIEW THE INFORMATION IN THEIR PORTION OF THE CALCULATION OF WHAT PERCENT OF
• OUT OF THE PROPERTY IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RENEWED WHEN WE REVIEW

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This management action would direct the commission to review their definition of substantial compliance
• This would direct the commission to review this so that a filer who is acting in good faith, learns how
• So, this recommendation directs the Ethics Commission to review rules relating to their definition of
• So, this review, along with stakeholder feedback, can better protect churches, charities, and community
• Members, it has been a privilege to serve as Chairman during this 2024–25 review cycle.

Summary: The Sunset Advisory Commission met for its final meeting of the biennium, established a quorum, and approved the December 11, 2024 minutes. Members then voted on staff recommendations for several agencies, including the Angelina and Netties River Authority, Lower Netties Valley Authority, and Trinity River Authority of Texas, adopting all recommendations for those entities without modification. The Texas Ethics Commission received the most discussion. Members adopted a modified recommendation to exempt lobby compensation thresholds from inflation adjustments and another modification to round inflation-adjusted amounts. The Commission also adopted a series of new recommendations addressing TEC customer service staffing, late filing penalties, post-election reporting penalties, waiver of penalties when notice cannot be produced, review of the substantial compliance standard for corrected reports, review of the definition of principal purpose for campaign finance reporting, more prominent public posting of delinquent penalties, and clearer training and guidance on lobbying registration and filing requirements. The Commission also adopted two previously omitted Texas Department of Criminal Justice recommendations, 6.5 and 6.6. The Commission then took its required final record vote to forward all recommendations adopted during the biennium to the 89th Legislature; the motion passed with nine ayes. Sunset staff provided a status update on implementation of 2023 Sunset recommendations, reporting that the State Auditor found 89% of selected management actions fully implemented and that Sunset staff found 68% of 163 statutory and related changes fully implemented, with the remainder mostly in progress. The meeting also noted the recently completed evaluation of the Texas Lottery Commission and ended with closing remarks from the chair and vice chair before the Commission recessed.

Transcript Highlights:

• We will review those.
• They don't review it.
• So, um, this is type of voter review.
• </c><00:32:38.000><c> our</c> this to be like we review our this to be like we review our commissioners
• </c> further backed by growing peer-reviewed further backed by growing peer-reviewed research<01:08:56.239

Committee: Senate Executive Departments and Administration

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> implementation of new payment review implementation of new payment review processes<00:21:16.080
• DHS contracted with a third party for this review and has established an ongoing prepayment review process
• </c> effect of the new prepayment review effect of the new prepayment review process,<00:27:06.799><c
• In this paid if not for the review.
• </c> So the in terms of the prepayment review So the in terms of the prepayment review process process

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And it does not circumvent environmental review or local permitting requirements.
• We're reviewing the amendments. Thank you.
• looks like in print and reviewing it with our own membership.
• These accounts are only reviewed after the money has already been spent by the utilities, and the review
• A vague term, 'review,' is used in the GRCs.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 804, the Hydrogen Pipeline Safety Act, from Senator Arreguín. He said the bill would designate the State Fire Marshal as the safety regulator for intrastate hydrogen pipelines and require hydrogen-specific standards, while not mandating any pipeline construction or bypassing environmental review. Supporters included labor groups, utility employees, and the City of Burbank, while Air Products opposed unless amended, citing concerns about the bill’s specificity, fee structure, and the need for a hydrogen-specific rulemaking process. The committee discussed safety, fees, and regulatory certainty, and later passed SB 804 on a 9-0 vote to Emergency Management with commitment to take amendments. The committee then took up SB 905 by Senator Becker, aimed at reducing electricity rates by changing utility incentives. The bill would tie part of executive compensation to keeping rates below inflation, require more performance metrics, and allow the CPUC to consider lower returns on equity for certain lower-risk investments and alternative financing options. Support came from consumer, environmental, agricultural, and large energy user groups, while Southern California Edison, CalChamber, PG&E, and utility labor groups raised concerns that the bill could reduce investment, create regulatory uncertainty, and raise borrowing costs. After extensive discussion about utility affordability, wildfire costs, and capital markets, the committee passed SB 905 on a 7-1 vote to Appropriations. SB 913, also by Senator Becker, would create a clearer pathway for distributed energy resources such as batteries and smart thermostats to participate in the resource adequacy market and compete with utility-scale resources. Supporters said the bill would better use existing grid capacity, lower costs, and build on the state’s Demand Side Grid Support Program; PG&E opposed unless amended, saying the use case was not yet proven and was already being addressed in other rulemakings. After the committee accepted amendments, one opposition group moved to neutral and another said it might do so after reviewing the changes. The bill passed 8-0 to Appropriations and was placed on call. Several other measures were heard and advanced, including SB 1196 on faster utility hookups for small energization projects such as ADUs and EV chargers, SB 931 reauthorizing the Diablo Canyon Essential Services Mitigation Fund through 2028, SB 1158 reducing the frequency of joint reliability assessments from quarterly to twice yearly, and SB 1245 directing further study of California’s gasoline market and potential use of non-CARBOB fuel during supply disruptions. SB 1196 and SB 931 both passed with broad support and no opposition after amendments, SB 1158 passed without testimony, and SB 1245 drew strong support from consumer and environmental advocates but opposition from fuel industry and business groups concerned about costs, confidentiality, and fuel standards.

Transcript Highlights:

• An annual review of 20% of the districts.
• We may go in through a review and say that is not an eligible cost.
• An annual review of 20% of the districts.
• We may go in through a review and say that is not an eligible cost.
• We may go in through a review and say that is not an eligible cost.

Committee: Senate Education Finance

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Generally, we found that the systems met or were reported... ...and reviews of system documentation.
• Sheriff Danles reviewed this opportunity and gave that funding to Dr.
• It's probably the most concerning county of all of them that I reviewed.
• You had independent legal review? Absolutely, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay.
• Legal review, absolutely, yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay, are there any additional questions?

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Audit Committee

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Let's call the Higher Ed Education Funding Review Committee to order, and we'll start by taking the roll
• So we're about 5% of the programs under review.
• They're engaged in reviewing these as we speak.
• Or how is that, how does a board review that when it says state priorities? Yes.
• And then you see the funding formula review, so revenue.

Summary: The committee met to review updates on low-completion academic programs, dual credit funding, and a draft higher education funding formula bill. Lisa Johnson of the University System explained the State Board of Higher Education’s proposed policy on low-completion programs, which would review associate through doctoral programs with fewer than 10 undergraduate or fewer than 5 graduate completions over a rolling five-year period. She said campuses already know which programs are low-performing, many terminations have involved programs with no students, and faculty are often reassigned rather than laid off. Members asked about online programs, the basis for the 10/5 thresholds, reactivation of inactive programs, and whether state priorities include workforce needs and legislative direction. The committee also discussed that some programs, such as sonography or foreign languages, may continue because of workforce or regional needs, and that the board’s policy is still moving through the approval process. The committee then heard a Commerce Department update on a $750,000 workforce development grant for tribally controlled colleges under SB 2018. Kerry Kraft reported that Turtle Mountain Community College was the only applicant and that it is using the grant to develop dual credit and workforce pathways in areas such as cybersecurity, medical assisting, welding, solar energy, public safety, and health care. Members asked why other tribal colleges did not apply, how many students are participating, and whether the program belongs in the Commerce budget or higher education budget. Kraft said the project is still in development, with no current enrollments yet, but the college has a goal of 210 students and has historically met a 75% completion rate or better. A major portion of the meeting focused on dual credit funding. Senator Sickler summarized the Institutions Committee’s work on quality, access, and cost, noting that most high school dual credit instructors now meet credentialing requirements and that access varies by region and school district preference. He presented cost data showing variation among campuses and discussed a possible single funding rate for subsidized dual credit, using a lower base rate as a model. Members questioned the direct and indirect cost calculations, whether dual credit is already funded through the formula, and whether a separate dual credit rate would require removing those credits from the general funding formula to avoid double payment. The committee then turned to a draft funding formula bill, with staff explaining technical corrections, a change to make UND and NDSU align with the other institutions’ undergraduate rates, a four-year average for research funding, and other revisions. Members discussed the overall fiscal impact, with staff estimating the proposal would increase funding compared with the current formula, and the committee also raised concerns about how dual credit, Tier 1 funding, and certificate programs should be treated in the formula. No final vote was taken, and the committee recessed to allow staff to refine the numbers and additional comparisons.