Transcript Highlights:

• CONTROLLING INTERESTS, BED TYPES, SERVICES PROVIDED AND ILLEGAL ACTIONS AND MORE ON THEIR.
• CMS CALCULATES THE CHILD COURSE SET MEASURE BEFORE ON BEHALF OF ALL STATES USING THE DATA CMS CALCULATES
• LIKE THE PREVIOUS METRICS CMS CALCULATES THE MEASURE ON BEHALF OF ALL STATES USING THE DATA SUBMITTED
• I DID WANT TO MENTION AFTER WE CALCULATED THE BASELINE FOR EACH PLAN, THAT'S WHERE WE WILL START WHEN
• IT IS IN TURN WHERE THESE DATA TO CALCULATE. >> Rep. Gerwig: THANK YOU MR.

Transcript Highlights:

• One, We represent the interests of consumers as a class in insurance matters, mostly involving rates
• How do you calculate that PML?
• for each 25% of the calculation.
• They come to that calculation, um, and that's determined at the board meeting.
• And does this Exposure there you're calculating in this calculation, is that just for one storm?

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 since those interest dollars are being allocated directly to the institutions in the fund, Those interest
• So it's just what the current calculation would be under the current formula.
• I would be interested, though, Mr. Chairman, if we could.

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:

• 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>
• they've got sufficient you know interest they've got sufficient you know interest and and and expertise

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:

• The maximum allowable square footage calculator is intended for that purpose. And the council...
• Then they can make the decision to move to Albuquerque if they're interested.
• It clarified the tariff calculation.
• What made the space eligible was when they exceeded that square foot calculator.
• On to the next item, which is somewhere here: gross square foot calculator discussion. Item C.

Transcript Highlights:

• We make no policy decisions, but we could calculate statistics if you'd like us to.
• the procurement Department to calculate the procurement Department to calculate an<01:35:07.000>
• <01:54:21.800> all front of you to make the calculation all front of you to make the calculation
• invest their money Garner High interest invest their money Garner High interest rates<03:40:08.720
• That would be a conflict of interest, and the conflict of interest is the idea, or the origin, of the

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on House Bill 233, which would impose transparency and reporting requirements on the New Hampshire Vaccine Association. The prime sponsor, Representative Comto, said the bill and a proposed amendment were intended to increase public access by requiring a physical meeting location, making meetings available online, and publishing a complete list of vaccines and pharmaceutical products purchased. She argued the association should be more transparent because it is involved in vaccine purchasing and public trust is important, especially given controversy around vaccines. Committee members questioned the sponsor about the association’s legal status, who sets vaccine requirements, whether other private entities would be covered, and whether the proposal should instead apply more broadly to all meetings or include recordings. The sponsor said the association was created by the legislature, that childhood vaccine requirements come from DHHS and CDC-related processes, and that she would be open to broader recording requirements. Some members raised concerns about misinformation and whether requiring answers to public questions could be problematic in a contentious policy area. Patrick Miller, executive director of the Vaccine Association, and attorney Mark McHugh testified in opposition. They described the association as a not-for-profit voluntary corporation created by statute in 2002 to serve as a funding mechanism for the state’s universal childhood vaccine purchase program, with no policymaking role and no public funding. They said the association already posts notices, agendas, minutes, and allows public webinar access and comments, while also providing annual audits and reports and other statutory reporting. They argued HB 233 would impose unnecessary administrative costs on a private entity, interfere with its limited charitable purpose, and ultimately increase costs borne by insurers, employers, and consumers. No vote or final action was taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Is there a conflict of interest? Where is the conflict of interest?
• it before, but that was a two-step calculation.
• I appreciate the interest in the bill.
• There's still going to be a big interest and need for dentists.
• So I just wanted to express those concerns for anybody that's interested.

Bills: HB2268, HB3000, HB3043, HB3066, HB3078, HB3143, HB3144, HB3244, HB3298, HB3320, HB3467, HB3321, HB3329, HB3431, HB3464, HB3499, HB3500, HB3586, HB3590, HB3650, HB3671, HB3695, HB3700, HB3701, HB3764, HB3767, HB3834, HB3931, HB3934, HB3940, HB3944, HB3979, HB3985, HB4113, HB4294, HB4302, HB4317, HB4324, HB4359, HB4426, HB4427, HB4430, HB4431, HB4434, HJR1077, SR42, SR35, HJR1023, HB1225, HB1374, HB1381, HB1590, HB1675, HB2153

Keywords: HB2268, Oklahoma Health Care Authority, OHCA, appropriation, General Revenue Fund, PACE, Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, elderly care, aging Oklahomans, long-term care, Medicaid, health care funding, provider reimbursement, rate increase, low-income seniors, senior services, integrated care, emergency measure, cosmetology, barbering

Transcript Highlights:

• and investment earnings, the interest earnings, the part of the balance that is just a earning interest
• . in interest earnings from the Rainy Day Fund will be contributing to general revenue.
• I'm interested in looking at that report, and I think my vantage point. news.
• But when we're talking about this, is that calculated at all when looking at the value?
• So I just ask, I mean, is any of that calculated when we're talking about increases?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You can tell by the interest that this is a riveting bill.
• I enjoyed all the testimony; I found yours especially interesting.
• No, we're not interested in that. We just want to get to these towns.
• We're not interested in costing you any money.
• There are real calculations that happen.

Bills: HB3445, HB3448

Keywords: telecommunications, electric cooperative, rights-of-way, infrastructure, provider access, right-of-way, pole attachment, regulatory access, 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• if that was in the best interest of the beneficiaries.
• if that was in the best interest of the beneficiaries.
• We have done our own calculations under two separate methodologies.
• So the LPV number is a statutory calculation.
• So the LPV number is a statutory calculation.

Bills: SB1090, SB1293, SB1414, SB1429, SB1503, SB1536, SB1633, SB1724, SB1764

Keywords: savings and loan, technical correction, Arizona Revised Statutes, financial institutions, prohibitions, GPLET, abatement, tax incentives, local government, property improvement, central business district, insurance, settlement demands, time limits, third-party claims, regulatory compliance, initiative, referendum, ballot measures, petition circulators

Summary: The committee first approved the February 2, 2026 minutes and held Senate Bill 1090. It then heard Senate Bill 1503, which would require pension fiduciaries and proxy advisory firms to act solely in the economic interest of plan participants and beneficiaries, prohibit ESG- or ideology-based voting, require disclosures and economic analyses in certain cases, and authorize attorney general enforcement. The sponsor said the bill was meant to protect investors and align with federal action. Testimony was mixed: a policy witness supported the bill, while representatives of ASRS and PSPRS said they were neutral but raised concerns about added costs, operational burdens, reporting requirements, possible conflicts with existing fiduciary duties, and increased litigation risk. After debate, the committee voted 4-3 to give SB 1503 a do-pass recommendation. The committee then considered Senate Bill 1293, which would prohibit GPLET school-district revenues from being abated during the eight-year abatement period. Supporters argued the bill would protect school funding and reduce state aid backfill costs, and a Goldwater Institute witness said it would also reduce gift-clause concerns by limiting subsidies that shift costs to other taxpayers. City and economic development representatives from Phoenix, Mesa, and the Greater Phoenix Economic Council opposed the bill, saying GPLET is an important redevelopment tool that helps finance projects in urban cores and that the change would reduce its effectiveness and slow revitalization. The committee adopted an amendment and then passed SB 1293 on a 4-3 vote. Next, the committee heard Senate Bill 1414, which gives insurers 30 days to review and respond to third-party settlement demands in bodily injury claims. Insurance representatives supported the bill as a commercially reasonable timeframe, while the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association opposed it, arguing that 30 days would become a minimum and could delay settlements for injured claimants; members discussed a possible 15-day compromise. The committee passed SB 1414 by a 5-2 vote. It also passed Senate Bill 1633, which creates an income tax subtraction for capital gains from the sale of a primary residence after a five-year residency; opponents warned it would mainly benefit wealthy homeowners and cost the state tens of millions annually, while the sponsor said it could help housing turnover. Finally, the committee passed SB 1429, as amended, allowing Senate and House leaders to designate board members for the Arizona Commerce Authority, SB 1536, which lets municipalities consolidate multiple street-light improvement districts, and heard SB 1724, which clarifies when property splits or consolidations trigger a limited property value recalculation to prevent tax-base manipulation.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:13:07.920> and um that is without the interest and um that is without the interest and
• Just line 28, the interest projected—I did, we use a wrong interest projected I did we use a wrong rate
• Interest projected—I did, we use a wrong interest projected I did we use a wrong rate, or was it just
• any of the drop in projected interest any of the drop in projected interest income<00:48:11.359>
• Interest rates, or interest rates again, I mentioned supply chain.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The meeting featured presentations from the Department of Administrative Services and the Treasury Department on state revenue reporting and unclaimed property. State Comptroller Dana Call explained DAS’s role in compiling statewide revenue reports, including the annual revenue plan set through the budget process and the monthly revenue focus reports that track cash receipts. She noted that unrestricted general fund revenue is about $2 billion annually, while miscellaneous other revenue is a much smaller and less predictable category, averaging roughly $30 million to $32 million a year. She also described two more material internal revenue lines: statewide indirect cost recoveries and post-retirement benefit recoveries, which are billed to agencies and often tied to federal reimbursement rules. Members asked about the interest line in the revenue charts and about how the figures were presented, and Call clarified that the totals were in millions and that the interest item would be explained by the Treasurer. She also explained that the indirect cost and post-retirement recoveries are internal cost allocations that flow back into the unrestricted revenue pool and are reflected in agency budgets as interagency costs. Treasurer Monica Meissner then outlined Treasury Department functions, including bank deposits, statewide disbursements, banking relationships, investments, debt management, compliance, the FONA College Savings Program, the ABLE Plan, scholarship programs, and the abandoned property program. In discussing unclaimed property, she said holders report property after a five-year dormancy period, the state uses automated systems and outreach to locate owners, and claim activity has increased. In fiscal year 2024, the state returned about $12.2 million to citizens through roughly 12,000 claims; over the last 10 years, about $72.6 million has been returned. She also said the state escheated $19.9 million to the general fund and $1.8 million to counties last year, and explained that securities-related proceeds are harder to estimate because they depend on market conditions. No votes or formal actions were taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• value calculation. value calculation. Thanks,<00:08:54.400> Ms.
• > part<00:14:45.680> about The unique and interesting part about The unique and interesting
• How were those payments treated in terms of calculations towards benefits?
• discussion to that um in the calculation discussion to that um in the calculation if<00:51:03.760
• <01:03:00.840> in retirement annuity must be calculated in retirement annuity must be calculated

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The commission first approved the minutes and then took up several pension omnibus items. Representative Rapinski’s item, related to an I-RAP issue, was moved ahead of the agenda and passed without further information after members noted the State Board of Investment and Minnesota State had not identified additional facts; the bill, as previously amended, was recommended for inclusion in the 2026 Pension Omnibus Bill. The committee also corrected a procedural issue on Senator Gustafson’s bill, SF 3897/HF 3703, after realizing an amendment referenced earlier belonged to a different bill; the motion was restated without the amendment reference and the bill was then recommended to pass and be incorporated into the omnibus bill. The main policy discussion centered on SF 3897/HF 3703, which would change how terminating firefighter relief association plans value benefits for firefighters under age 50. Senator Gustafson said the current statute can unfairly reduce benefits by requiring present-value discounting and that the bill would instead allow benefits to be based on accrued benefit under the plan formula, while still leaving relief associations flexibility to use present value if they choose. Staff confirmed the bill applies only to relief associations under chapter 424B, not PERA or the statewide plan. Senator Rasmussen raised concerns about consistency between SVF and non-SVF reliefs and about differing treatment on termination; the bill author acknowledged the difference. The committee ultimately voted to recommend the bill for inclusion in the omnibus pension bill. The final major item was House File 4162, as amended by an A1 amendment, which requires employers of reemployed annuitants in TRA to make employer contributions during reemployment, including Minnesota State Colleges and Universities employees covered under section 354.445. Representative O’Driscoll argued the bill would direct existing education-formula pension dollars to TRA, prevent districts from using those funds elsewhere when retirees are rehired, and keep the employee neutral because the annuitant’s benefit would not change. Supporters said the measure would help pension funding and address situations where districts rehire retired teachers, often in hard-to-fill specialties. Opponents, including Senator Rasmusson, questioned the added cost to school districts, citing an estimated $5.385 million in annual TRA revenue from the change and warning it could reduce districts’ ability to hire or retain staff. After discussion, the committee had not yet taken final action on this item in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's annuitized at retirement and then plugged into this equation to calculate SRP benefits.
• I'm happy to take any questions on this calculation.
• And second, SRP benefits come in lower because of how benefits are calculated in the plan.
• That’s the measurement date used to calculate those contribution rates.
• Is anyone interested in making a motion?

Summary: The Pension Funding Council met on June 23, 2026, for a work session that began with an overview of the Higher Education Supplemental Retirement Plan (SRP) and a 2025 accounting valuation of that plan. Staff explained that the SRP is a closed defined benefit supplement for higher education employees hired before the 2011 closure, with employer contributions currently pre-funding benefits in institution-specific trusts while institutions still pay benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis. The State Actuary’s office reported that the plan’s accounting position has improved, with combined market assets of about $245 million against $377 million in accrued liability, and that strong market performance since 2022 has increased the asset-to-liability ratio. The office emphasized that this was an educational accounting valuation, not a funding valuation for rate-setting. The council then received the 2025 actuarial valuation report for the state retirement systems. Actuaries reviewed the recent demographic experience study, noting updated assumptions for mortality, retirement, termination, and salary growth, and said the net impact on most plans was small. They reported that most plans’ funded ratios improved, with all plans at least 94% funded and several at or above 100%, and that contribution rates for the 2027–2029 biennium are generally lower than current rates. They also noted that future rates could be affected by market volatility as deferred gains are recognized over the next few years. During public comment, a representative of the Association of Washington Cities urged the council to consider rate reductions to help local governments facing budget pressures. In executive session, the council first approved a motion directing the Office of the State Actuary to perform an actuarial evaluation and analysis of each institution’s Higher Education Supplemental Retirement Plan, including institution-specific contribution rates, asset sufficiency, and funding policy options, due by July 1, 2028. The council then adopted the 2027–2029 pension contribution rates based on the 2025 actuarial valuation report. Both motions passed 5-0, with one member excused. The meeting concluded with no further business.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:32:10.519> the our compensatory Revenue calculation the our compensatory Revenue calculation
• <00:32:30.799> in to build into the calculation in to build into the calculation in addition
• <01:40:45.679> and which I find very interesting and which I find very interesting and they're
• take that to account for calculations take that to account for calculations when<01:43:11.840>
• <01:45:42.280> were the 95 and 90% um calculations were the 95 and 90% um calculations were

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:46:58.960> and they have the capacity and interest and they have the capacity and interest
• They need to calculate... The districts need to calculate it.
• Um, they would have to calculate, as I said, they don't calculate by student now unless they're doing
• calculate as I said they don't calculate calculate as I said they don't calculate by<03:43:23.520
• documentation, it is that calculation documentation, it is that calculation for<03:44:04.800>

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 209, which would require schools seeking building aid for construction or reconstruction projects to use an owner’s project manager. The chair explained an amendment that would remove the bill’s requirement that the manager be engaged before application and instead revert to current law, while updating the project threshold from the older $1 million figure to a more current amount and clarifying that the manager’s role is to protect the project owner’s interests. Members asked about the cost of hiring a project manager over several years before a project is funded, the 1.5% fee in rule, and whether the rules already define the manager’s duties. The chair said the amendment addressed those concerns by leaving the timing to current law and relying on existing administrative rules for qualifications and responsibilities. The committee then voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 209 OTPA, placing it on the consent calendar. The committee then moved to SB 99, which concerns allowing students enrolled in career and technical education programs at receiving comprehensive high schools to take additional academic courses there. The chair said the bill was intended to make it easier for students to access CTE without being blocked by scheduling conflicts in their sending schools, and to clarify how agreements between sending and receiving districts would work. He described concerns about the bill’s cost formula, transportation, part-time versus full-time status, and whether the proposal could unintentionally create open-enrollment or athletic-transfer issues. He said the amendment would mirror existing treatment for homeschool and charter school students, use a familiar funding model, and limit participation to students already enrolled in one or more CTE classes at the receiving school. The chair also emphasized that comprehensive high schools already have a statutory definition and that the bill would help more students participate in CTE, which he said currently reaches only a relatively small share of students statewide. He noted that transportation would be covered only when a CTE bus is available, otherwise students would be responsible for arranging travel as under current practice. After brief discussion, the committee voted 18-0 to adopt the amendment and 18-0 to recommend SB 99 OTPA, also placing it on the consent calendar.

Transcript Highlights:

• interest in contracts...
• Financial interest in contracts, grants, or standards considered or awarded. 7.
• What is interesting about this...
• In an interesting turn of events, we've got the two-year now after the five-year.
• and the four districts total program calculation pursuant to section 22-54-104.

Keywords: 981, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , >> Um, as part of the adequacy calculation, >> Um, as part of the adequacy calculation
• the adequacy calculation come from? the adequacy calculation come from?
• the DOE does the adequacy calculation. the DOE does the adequacy calculation.
• calculate it based on that. calculate it based on that.
• from right from the state calculation. from right from the state calculation.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The commission met to review and amend the minutes from its previous meeting, correcting the date, several spelling and wording errors, and clarifying references to a scholarship fund and a member’s title. The minutes were then approved as amended, with some members abstaining because they were not present at the prior meeting. The chair then turned to the commission’s work plan under SB 57, emphasizing the need to prioritize the statutory topics and identify which issues require additional research, documentation, and possible spreadsheets. Members discussed a broad range of special education cost drivers and policy questions, including student referral rates, why students are classified as other health impaired, whether referrals increased after COVID school closures, intervention processes before referral, the cost of services required under IEPs and 504 plans, differences between federal law, state law, and DOE rules, reporting of special education costs, out-of-district and residential placements, district sharing of resources, dispute resolution, graduation rates, and adult learning outcomes. Several members raised concerns that school environments, mental health, bullying, and possible overidentification may be contributing to rising special education numbers and costs, while others cautioned that some reported district percentages may be inflated or unclear because of how the data are counted. A major portion of the meeting focused on HB 742, which would eliminate prorated special education aid when state appropriations are insufficient and require the governor to draw a warrant to cover shortfalls. Representative Ames explained that the bill had been recommended for interim study because the commission is already examining special education costing, and he highlighted the gap between FY24 special education costs of about $977.1 million and state aid of $33.9 million for catastrophic aid, $67.4 million for differentiated aid, and $50.8 million in federal IDEA funds, leaving local districts to cover about $825.1 million. He argued the commission should ultimately make clear that both the federal government and the state should contribute more. The Department of Education, through Melissa White, answered questions about data and oversight. She said special education counts come from IEPs entered into the state system using SASIDs, that DOE monitors districts through both desk audits and on-site visits, and that billing is checked against the services listed in each student’s IEP. She also said DOE’s special education work is largely federally funded, with roughly $56.7 million received through IDEA this year and about $49.1 million flowing through to LEAs, while the department retains a small amount for administration and statewide support activities. Members also discussed how adequacy calculations use special education counts from the state system and how those figures are reported.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:17:29.600> represent year with that 2% interest represent year with that 2% interest represent
• They're sort of interesting because they do not have incredibly expensive needs.
• <02:14:11.199> how session on it and to help calculate how session on it and to help calculate
• Representative Damon, you brought up an interesting point about the average.
• <05:19:51.440> I swept and I I found it interesting I swept and I I found it interesting I

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing focused on HB 563, which would revise the education funding formula for pupils receiving special education services by replacing the current single special education amount with three differentiated categories. Representative Rick Ladd, the prime sponsor, said the bill largely tracks a House-passed version from the prior session with minor figure adjustments, and explained that the proposal uses projected FY26 amounts for three categories based on time in general education versus more intensive placements. He also noted that the bill does not address catastrophic aid directly, but that special education aid, CAT aid, and proration all remain issues for later work sessions. Ladd and supporters argued that weighted categories better reflect actual costs and are more sustainable than treating all IEPs the same. Representative Margaret Drye said the approach was one of the best ideas from the education funding subcommittee and urged the committee to support differentiated aid. Representative Ames asked how the category amounts were derived, and Ladd said Category A follows the FY26 base, Category B is a higher weight, and Category C is a still higher weight for more intensive services, though he acknowledged the exact multipliers were developed earlier and could be revisited. He also said the committee would continue discussing whether the weights are appropriate and how they interact with CAT aid. Testimony from Bonnie Dunham strongly opposed the bill. She argued that funding based on placement rather than actual service need would create incentives to move students into more restrictive settings, could stigmatize children with labels such as "Category C," and would undermine the least restrictive environment requirements under federal special education law. She described her son’s experience in inclusive settings as beneficial and said the bill would have penalized the district for serving him there. In response to questions, she said schools and parents should base funding on the child’s actual needs and costs, not on placement, and urged the committee to recommend the bill inexpedient to legislate.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe we want to look at having a true methodology to calculate an amount.
• 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.
• So it will be interesting to see what happens to this in the next few years.
• I had an interesting story.

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:

• And so you have a lot of interest in avoiding new natural gas infrastructure.
• But will you share what you find and what the calculations are and how you determine?
• to identify what the public interest is.
• , is still there to serve the public interest.
• So we took the cost of carbon calculation methodology that EPA recommends.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on two related issues: gas utilities’ climate compliance plans filed with the Department of Public Utilities and the recent DPU orders reforming the Gas System Enhancement Program (GSEP). Chair Creem and other senators emphasized that Massachusetts must reduce gas use, shrink the gas distribution footprint, and move customers to alternatives such as heat pumps, network geothermal, and non-gas pipeline alternatives (NPAs). DPU Chair Jamie Van Nostrand said the new GSEP orders lower the annual revenue cap from 3.0% to 2.5%, phase it down toward 1.5%, eliminate carrying charges, require more rigorous risk prioritization, and push utilities to consider advanced leak technology, relining, repairs, and NPAs. He also described the climate compliance plans as the start of a longer process covering decommissioning, stranded costs, line extension allowances, integrated energy planning, and targeted electrification demonstrations. Senators pressed the DPU and utility witnesses on the lack of specificity in the climate compliance plans, especially the absence of numeric goals for gas usage reduction, customer conversions, and near-term deployment of NPAs. Utility representatives from Eversource and National Grid said their plans include NPA frameworks, integrated energy planning, targeted electrification pilots, network geothermal, and workforce transition efforts, but argued that implementation takes time, requires customer participation, and depends on coordination with electric utilities and communities. They said some NPA and electrification projects are being evaluated now, while larger-scale deployment is expected later in the decade. Senators also raised concerns about line extension allowances, with utilities explaining that new customers may be charged based on whether existing ratepayers would otherwise be harmed, while National Grid said it has begun increasing customer contributions to send stronger price signals. Attorney General Mary Gardner supported the DPU’s GSEP reforms and said the office favors eventually stepping the GSEP cap down to zero by 2030, with repair and replacement costs recovered in base rate cases instead. She argued that the utilities’ plans still rely too heavily on business-as-usual approaches, do not adequately quantify scope 3 emissions, and leave unresolved questions about the obligation to serve and the future of line extension allowances. Advocacy witnesses from the Conservation Law Foundation and Acadia Center were more critical, saying the plans lack the detailed modeling, targets, and transparency needed to show how the utilities will help meet the Commonwealth’s heating and cooling sublimits and broader climate goals. No votes were taken; the hearing consisted of testimony and questioning.