Transcript Highlights:

• Next on cost share.
• For replacement projects, Deloitte is recommending a cost share percentage.
• For replacement projects, Deloitte is recommending a cost share percentage of 25% with a $2 million per
• cost share.
• So when I put the benefit costs for I know how much that's north line, but there's a lot of value in

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to review several interim studies and receive updates from the Department of Water Resources. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and welcomed Representative Hansen to the committee. Staff then reported that the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study had both satisfied the presentation requirements in their study directives, with no further required testimony unless members wanted additional information. The department’s main presentation focused on major water projects and agency operations. Reese Haas and staff updated members on the NAWS project, the Southwest Pipeline Project, Devils Lake outlet operations, low-head dam safety work, floodplain management repository implementation, data center water use, and the 2027 Water Development Plan. Members asked detailed questions about NAWS funding sources, remaining project costs, capacity concerns for All Seasons and other users, and whether current construction is being designed for future demand. The department said NAWS remains on track for substantial completion by October, that remaining NAWS funding will come from a mix of federal, state, and local sources, and that current construction is designed for ultimate capacity while some future components will be adjusted for increased demand. A large portion of the meeting was devoted to the department’s cash management, Resources Trust Fund revenues, carryover balances, and the State Water Commission’s cost-share program. The department reported $340.6 million in carryover remaining, explained that much of it is already obligated to long-term projects, and noted that oil price forecasts and stripper-well exemptions will affect future revenues. Members raised concerns about large carryovers, affordability for local sponsors, and whether the state should continue obligating money multiple bienniums ahead. The department said it is working with the commission on a revised prioritization framework, including high/moderate/low project categories and a two-tier pre-construction/construction approach, to better manage obligations and affordability. The committee also reviewed Deloitte’s finalized studies on regional governance/finance and cost-share policy. Deloitte presented options for Southwest, NAWS, and Red River governance, with stakeholders generally favoring keeping NAWS largely as is, using the current Southwest model with improvements, and pursuing a more structured governance option for Red River. On cost share, the department said Deloitte’s recommended package would cover projected needs through the 2030s, but would require policy changes such as lower percentages for some project types, a 25% replacement-project rate with a cap, and possible bonding or delayed reimbursement strategies. No votes were taken on these policy questions, and the chair indicated the committee would continue the discussion at future basin meetings and the September Water Topics meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• How much does it cost?
• We think it's costing more money than it should.
• or replacement value. ...of asset details such as cost or replacement value, important dates, and required
• This information is needed to estimate replacement value, which helps the Department of Administrative
• Additionally, we discovered asset replacement values were not inputted for all key capital assets on

Keywords: 907, all

Summary: The Joint Interim Committee on Legislative Audits met on June 17 for informational presentations. The Department of Administrative Services, through Chief Audit Executive Eli Ritchie, gave an overview of statewide internal audit requirements and the fiscal year 2025 report. He explained the difference between internal and external audit, described Oregon’s statutory and rule-based internal audit structure, and reported that 30 agencies had internal audit functions, with most meeting required standards. He said 73 audits and 49 advisory/consulting engagements were completed statewide, with strong compliance overall, though a few agencies were rebuilding audit committees after vacancies. No committee questions were raised after the presentation. The Secretary of State’s Audits Division then presented its Government Waste Hotline annual report. Director Steve Bergman and audit manager Olivia Rekhed described changes made to align the hotline with statute, including renaming it the Government Waste Hotline, creating a review panel, improving anonymity protections, removing fraud reporting from the hotline’s scope, and adjusting reporting timelines. They said hotline volume increased modestly in 2025, most reports were referred elsewhere or closed for insufficient evidence, and two reports were substantiated, including questioned costs of about $856 for personal use of a state vehicle and about $2.9 million tied to the Preschool Promise program. Committee members asked about hotline staffing, cost, anonymity, and follow-up on findings; staff said the hotline is lightly resourced, uses a contracted intake service, and referrals or recommendations are followed up through management letters and later reviews. The committee also heard an audit of the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department’s safety inspections and asset tracking. The Secretary of State’s office reported that OPRD had not consistently conducted or documented quarterly OSHA safety inspections and had incomplete asset records, including missing acquisition dates and costs for many assets. The audit made eight recommendations covering safety inspection policies, asset management guidance, tagging, reconciliations, disposition controls, training, and a new asset management system; OPRD agreed to all recommendations. OPRD officials said they had already begun training staff, improving inspection procedures, and working toward a replacement asset system, while noting operational challenges from a large, dispersed park system and manual processes. Committee members asked about what kinds of assets are tracked, how tagging works, whether items were actually being lost, and how much tracking is necessary for low-value tools; OPRD said the main issue was inconsistent classification and documentation rather than widespread loss. The meeting ended with no votes or formal actions taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's also been added with an estimated value of $438.7 million.
• We estimate the design phase, which is 10% of the project, to cost this.
• Also, Mora is talking about coming to apply for a combo replacement.
• Reducing school utility costs.
• To maintain the investments over time, so it does add value.

Transcript Highlights:

• There is a difficult resale value.
• Costs can go out of control if we expect it to cost $5 million and it ends up costing $7 million, as
• If they have to eat into instructional costs and educational costs to support their facility, over time
• , authorizers 80% loan-to-value.
• Values to this that now the...

Transcript Highlights:

• We identify and track those things, and we estimate what it would cost to replace it, and the aggregate
• If you spend 30% of the replacement value of the building on a project, then you have to run it to basically
• The replacement value of about $10.5 billion, and the reason that's important was what came up earlier
• And if you're spending more than a third of the replacement value—so if we were tackling the whole portfolio
• And sometimes then the solution does cost more because you have to replace rather than repair.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Commission on Correctional Consolidation and Collaboration met on October 17 with members attending in person and virtually. The commission approved the September 15 minutes and then heard a detailed presentation from DCAM Commissioner Adam Bakey on the correctional facilities portfolio, including the age and condition of DOC and sheriff facilities, deferred maintenance, ADA compliance, decarbonization mandates, and how capital funding is allocated. Bakey said the correctional portfolio includes 36 facilities, with average ages over 50 years, and described how older, rapidly built facilities from the tough-on-crime era now face significant maintenance and replacement needs. He also explained the distinction between catch-up deferred maintenance and ongoing keep-up needs, and noted that construction costs and code thresholds have made projects more expensive. Commissioners and sheriffs asked about ADA requirements, aging and overcrowded facilities, hazardous materials, parts availability for obsolete systems, plumbing and health risks, and whether a newer, more modern correctional facility should be considered. Bakey said many projects trigger broader code upgrades, that some dormant facilities remain in the portfolio, and that health-care and correctional construction are among the most expensive building types. He outlined current funding, including annual deferred maintenance allocations for DOC and formula-based five-year commitments for sheriffs, plus a new competitive capital program for larger sheriff projects. He also explained the Designer Selection Board and “house doctor” process used to procure architects and engineers. The commission then shifted to planning its next steps, focusing on public input. Members agreed the next meeting should likely be a public hearing or include public testimony, with possible input from people with lived experience and consideration of facility tours, especially of women’s facilities such as Framingham. Members emphasized the need to define the commission’s scope clearly so testimony stays focused on structural and consolidation issues rather than all correctional policy topics. The meeting ended with plans for the co-chairs to coordinate the public process and a motion to adjourn, which passed without opposition.

Transcript Highlights:

• You talked about cash value versus replacement value and then also approvals and the challenges with
• talked about cash value vers versus replacement<00:19:10.559> value<00:19:11.760> and<
• and increasing building repair and replacement costs.
• And since premiums replacement costs.
• Um about guaranteed replacement values.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Next on cost share.
• For replacement projects, Deloitte is recommending a cost share percentage.
• For replacement projects, Deloitte is recommending a cost share percentage of 25% with a $2 million per
• cost share.
• Project costs going forward, construction costs total about $30 million.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , property value or low property value, property value or low property value, you're<00:20:19.200
• a half% of your property value. a half% of your property value.
• not based on uh 2% or cost of living. not based on uh 2% or cost of living.
• We tend to value.
• replace all. replace all.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• there are many factors I think the cost there are many factors I think the cost of<00:22:06.080>
• You said that you did not say that this costed it, but your counterpart to your right said the exact
• What will replace this is actually the freedom and equality of opportunity for all.
• I work with knew I value them, especially the women who worked for me when I was a manager.
• that value does not just come from white men.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The House Standing Committee on Postsecondary Education met to consider House Bill 4, relating to postsecondary education. Before taking up the bill, the committee adopted a committee substitute. The substitute removed language creating a private right of action and immunity provisions, added a definition of “indoctrinate,” revised language tied to the Attorney General, and added a new section directing the Auditor of Public Accounts to review compliance every four years. If an institution is found out of compliance, it would have 180 days to cure the issue or become ineligible for formula funding increases in the following fiscal year, with an opportunity to petition the Attorney General. The substitute also added language barring licensing authorities from requiring diversity, equity, and inclusion training as a condition of initial or renewal licensure. Representative Decker presented the bill as an effort to end what she described as unconstitutional DEI practices in Kentucky’s postsecondary system and to refocus colleges on academic instruction, equal opportunity, and affordability. She argued that DEI offices and initiatives have cost taxpayers heavily and have not improved enrollment outcomes for low-income and underrepresented students. Michael Frasier, testifying in support, framed the bill as an equal-protection measure rather than simply an anti-DEI bill, saying it targets preferential treatment and discrimination while exempting traditional civil-rights compliance offices such as Title IX, disability, and other anti-discrimination functions. He also argued that the bill aligns with recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent and that Kentucky should shift toward socioeconomic-based approaches. Several members raised concerns about the bill’s assumptions and effects. Representative Willner questioned the claim that DEI initiatives caused enrollment declines and asked why the state would not make such programs more inclusive instead of eliminating them. Representative Stalker argued that the bill ignored decades of exclusion in higher education and asked what would replace DEI efforts aimed at closing achievement gaps and preventing brain drain. Supporters responded that the bill addresses unconstitutional preferences and that the state should move toward equal treatment and socioeconomic factors rather than race-based criteria. After discussion, the committee substitute was adopted, and the committee continued consideration of House Bill 4.

Transcript Highlights:

• It really wasn't adding value.
• Recommended option number one considers 25% cost share for eligible replacement projects, supported by
• And lastly, feasibility, benefits, and trade-offs: effort, cost, and implementation risk versus value
• Cost share percentages.
• those costs for locals.

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met with a quorum and received updates from the Department of Water Resources and the State Water Commission, followed by presentations from Deloitte on two legislative studies required by House Bill 1020. Director Reese Haas reviewed major project and budget updates, including the Northwest Area Water Supply and Southwest Pipeline projects, Resources Trust Fund balances, carryover spending, project prioritization, bid conditions, regional water system coverage, and department process improvements. Members also discussed how the commission prioritizes projects, maintenance expectations, and the impact of limited municipal water supply funding. No formal committee action was taken during the DWR update; the commission’s municipal funding decisions were described as pending its April 8 meeting. Deloitte then presented the cost-share policy study, which found that under current policy and forecasted revenues, North Dakota faces an estimated $1.3 billion shortfall over 14 years, with a near-term gap of about $1.8 billion through 2031. The firm outlined seven recommended options, including tighter definitions and a 25% cost share for eligible replacement projects, caps and financing strategies for the Mouse River and Red River Valley projects, aligning cost share with commission priority guidance, delaying lower-priority projects, using available lines of credit, and adjusting reimbursement timing for revolving loan funds. Committee members questioned inflation assumptions, affordability, user fees, and the use of legacy fund earnings for bonding, but no decisions were made. In the governance and finance study, Deloitte said final recommendations are still being refined, with a final report due May 29. The study examined the Southwest Pipeline, NAWS, and Red River Valley systems using governance and finance criteria such as decision authority, transparency, affordability, risk, and access to funding. For Southwest, Deloitte outlined options ranging from improved state-authority coordination to transferring ownership to the Southwest Water Authority; for NAWS, options focused on strengthening the authority’s role and potentially transitioning operations and maintenance; and for Red River, options ranged from enhanced facilitation to formal state oversight or state ownership. Members asked follow-up questions about ownership transfer, capital repayment streams, and why NAWS was not considered for transfer, and Deloitte said NAWS’s limited organizational maturity made that option less viable in the near term.

Transcript Highlights:

• costs.
• We're not of cost to the cost of housing.
• Replacement of utility poles is already an eligible project cost when included in an award.
• Replacement of utility poles is already an eligible project cost when included in an awarded BOOT or
• Others have replaced poles, right? They’ve replaced some—companies have replaced poles.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Replacement avoids exposure to additional stranded costs.
• meaning it costs all of us ratepayers less than replacing those pipes would.
• This is because GSEP accelerates cost recovery of leak-prone pipe replacements.
• and promote lower-cost repairs over replacements.
• And so in the first case, the Pipeline replacement costs are about $655,000.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• determination of the full cost of the proposal.
• If construction is proposed, the cost of each year of construction, and I will say when it was originally
• those that are along this route who for a decade have kind of had to hit. the pause button on the values
• Down the road on how we deal with these infrastructure costs and these personnel costs in rural communities
• Businesses don't have to bear the cost of long-distance legal battles or be subjected to laws that do

Bills: SB203, SB317, SB397, SB511, SB524, SB731, SB781, SB801, SB867, SB1071, SB1087, SB1232, SB1444, SB1483, SB1782, SB1798, SB1861, SB1944, SB2082, SB2233, SB2309, SB2363, SB2497, SB2549, SB2566, SB2603, SB2607, SB2617, SB2688, SB2717, SB2797, SB2841, SB2919, SB2928, SB2969, SB3063, HB12, HB26, HB33, HB34, HB45, HB48, HB130, HB148, HB198, HB431, HB647, HB668, HB677, HB748, HB754, HB791, HB1022, HB1193, HB1240, HB1242, HB1318, HB1397, HB1520, HB1584, HB1729, HB1922, HB1950, HB2003, HB2027, HB2029, HB2254, HB2350, HB2559, HB2607, HB2663, HB2712, HB2768, HB2775, HB2788, HB2789, HB2802, HB2894, HB2960, HB3033, HB3041, HB3126, HB3228, HB3229, HB3474, HB3560, HB3594, HB3611, HB3698, HB3699, HB3700, HB3805, HB4187, HB4219, HB4238, HB4344, HB4384, HB4739, HB4753, HB4804, HB4850, HB4885, HB5560, HCR90, SJR34, SB529, SB541, SB693, SB963, SB1173, SB1241, SB1383, SB1559, SB1646, SB1734, SB1833, SB1883, SB1968, SB2544, SB1, SB17, SB260, SB509, SB1506, SB1637, SB2308, SJR36, SJR50, SJR63, SJR60, SCR12, SCR39, SB2023, SB2309, SB1861, SB2617, SB62, SB666, SB847, SB284, SB854, SB810, SB1505, SB583, SB507, SB1434, SB1772, SB2016, SB1122, SB731, SB397, SB508, SB1436, SB287, SB1882, SB393, SB1791, SB209, SB2429, SB511, SB1085, SB1975, SB2717, SB1262, SB636, SB2056, SB884, SB1200, SB1845, SB2458, SB801, SB3014, SB3013, SB758, SB2797, SB2076, SB2876, SB1640, SB1449, SB1181, SB1234, SB2926, SB2841, SB1528, SB1854, SB317, SB1250, SB2082, SB1237, SB2819, SB629, SB2608, SB1602, SB2009, SB867, SB640, SB1698, SB2680, SB913, SB1071, SB1086, SB1087, SB1483, SB1444, SB1553, SB1556, SB1703, SB2133, SB2297, SB2298, SB2622, SB2955, SB2334, SB1367, SB2044, SB2363, SB2565, SB1888, SB3036, SB3057, SB3043, SB3063, SB3035, SB203, SB2688, SB2522, SB2459, SB2655, SB2251, SB1884, SB2928, SB2566, SB1749, SB2549, SB2553, SB2919, SB1782, SB1944, SB1232, SB2969, SB2497, SB1798, SB2603, SB2607, SB781, SB524, SB2233, SB2683, SB1319, SB1978, SB3038, SB3045, SB1633, SB1538, SB719, SB3071, HB1393, HB2559, HB26, HB2607, HB3810, HB388, HB12, HB2712, HB1633, HB1318, HB685, HB4753, HB198, HB762, HB148, HB1520, HB2286, HB1606, HB132, HB45, HB48, HB33, HB1022, HB1458, HB5560, HB1240, HB1950, HB2027, HB2768, HB2788, HB2791, HB3146, HB3698, HB3699, HB1893, HB3700, HB4850, HB4187, HB1397, HB4885, HB4804, HB3751, HB3611, HB2775, HB2061, HB2003, HB1729, HB1242, HB791, HB2029, HB647, HB2522, HB4738, HB3033, HB3594, HB3474, HB2563, HB2802, HB34, HB128, HB130, HB581, HB668, HB677, HB766, HB2259, HB2960, HB2358, HB2894, HB4384, HB2663, HB748, HB793, HB1193, HB1734, HB2340, HB2350, HB3104, HB5180, HB4739, HB1584, HB4344, HB4238, HB4219, HB3806, HB3805, HB3804, HB3803, HB3229, HB3228, HB1922, HB1522, HB431, HB3597, HB1612, HB4224, HB754, HB1314, HB2254, HB2789, HB3560, HB4643, HB1237, HB3126, HB2856, HB3114, HB3041, HB3505, HB4205, HB5652, HB3687, HB5424, HB4506, HB3370, HB2025, HB4273, HB3395, HB3376, HB2733, HB2495, HB4325, HB2071, HB2510, HB138, HB18, HB107, HB694, HB923, HB1639, HB1700, HB2187, HB3211, HB4529, HB4655, HB5342, HB2516, HB4783, HB1894, HB1965, HB102, HB300, HB1875, HB2513, HB2713, HB39, HB114, HB24, HB3088, HB4163, HB3479, HB2842, HB519, HB609, HB1275, HB1592, HB3348, HCR90, HCR98, SB524, SB781, SB1782, SB2497, SB2969, HB12, HB33, HB34, HB45, HB48, HB130, HB148, HB198, HB431, HB668, HB677, HB754, HB791, HB1022, HB1193, HB1242, HB1318, HB1520, HB1729, HB1922, HB1950, HB2003, HB2027, HB2029, HB2559, HB2607, HB2663, HB2768, HB2775, HB2789, HB2802, HB2894, HB2960, HB3041, HB3228, HB3229, HB3474, HB3560, HB3594, HB3611, HB3698, HB3699, HB3700, HB3805, HB4238, HB4344, HB4739, HB4804, HB4885, HB5560, SB1861, SB2309, SB2617, SB511, SR545, HJR47, HB75, HB108, HB111, HB521, HB1052, HB1249, HB1373, HB1403, HB1449, HB1586, HB1629, HB1646, HB1794, HB1820, HB1831, HB1845, HB1939, HB1960, HB1991, HB2014, HB2080, HB2136, HB2159, HB2293, HB2313, HB2399, HB2512, HB2581, HB2593, HB2621, HB2638, HB2655, HB2658, HB2694, HB2731, HB2757, HB2803, HB2807, HB2814, HB2844, HB2999, HB3053, HB3142, HB3171, HB3234, HB3254, HB3320, HB3349, HB3405, HB3420, HB3463, HB3516, HB3520, HB3631, HB3679, HB3680, HB3694, HB3722, HB3732, HB3749, HB3793, HB3833, HB3928, HB3977, HB4014, HB4042, HB4076, HB4099, HB4105, HB4112, HB4158, HB4204, HB4207, HB4234, HB4449, HB4454, HB4520, HB4535, HB4559, HB4582, HB4630, HB4669, HB4748, HB4795, HB4847, HB4848, HB4916, HB4924, HB5093, HB5302, HB5509, HB5624, HB5627, HB5629, HB5632, HB5639, HB5664, HB5693, HB5698, HB2851, HB5154, HB5339, HJR47, HB75, HB108, HB111, HB521, HB1052, HB1249, HB1373, HB1403, HB1449, HB1586, HB1629, HB1646, HB1794, HB1820, HB1831, HB1845, HB1939, HB1960, HB1991, HB2014, HB2080, HB2136, HB2159, HB2293, HB2313, HB2399, HB2512, HB2581, HB2593, HB2621, HB2638, HB2655, HB2658, HB2694, HB2731, HB2757, HB2803, HB2807, HB2814, HB2844, HB2999, HB3053, HB3142, HB3171, HB3234, HB3254, HB3320, HB3349, HB3405, HB3420, HB3463, HB3516, HB3520, HB3631, HB3679, HB3680, HB3694, HB3722, HB3732, HB3749, HB3793, HB3833, HB3928, HB3977, HB4014, HB4042, HB4076, HB4099, HB4105, HB4112, HB4158, HB4204, HB4207, HB4234, HB4449, HB4454, HB4520, HB4535, HB4559, HB4582, HB4630, HB4669, HB4748, HB4795, HB4847, HB4848, HB4916, HB4924, HB5093, HB5302, HB5509, HB5624, HB5627, HB5629, HB5632, HB5639, HB5664, HB5693, HB5698, HB2851, HB5154, HB5339

Keywords: student privacy, numerical class rank, education policy, academic programs, high school, monuments, memorials, public property, historical significance, civil penalties, local governance, SB 397, telemedicine, telehealth, teledentistry, remote care, virtual care, consent documentation, patient consent, data collection

Transcript Highlights:

• the general fund for the position costs. the general fund for the position costs. Okay. Okay.
• If it went poof and we needed to replace it today, this replacement fund is not meant to do that.
• If it went poof and we needed to replace it today, this replacement fund is not meant to do that.
• of construction, the inflation that happened, and all of the replacement costs of equipment sort of
• It's it was a<00:48:07.839> replaceable a replaceable a replaceable amendment amendment amendment

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So that's the value of doing this through the Research Council, the value of having the ERC put it all
• would cost, and we'll compare that to the costs of a reinterment process.
• And then the boiler replacement...
• Within the total cost, the construction costs, which are being provided by Mortensen, NDIT costs, which
• The response was yes, and that they would be under the soft costs, including the state and soft costs

Summary: The Budget Section Leadership Division met with a quorum present and approved the March 18 minutes. The committee first heard an update from the Petroleum Council on oil and gas activity, which described North Dakota production as holding steady around 1.1 to 1.2 million barrels per day despite lower prices and market volatility. The presentation emphasized that efficiency gains, longer laterals, and improved completion technology are allowing operators to sustain output while activity shifts north in the Bakken. Members asked about gas taxation, natural gas liquids, flaring, and enhanced oil recovery; the witness said gas is taxed by volume, most liquids are handled through oil lines or gas processing, and the state’s EOR pilot projects and new gas infrastructure are intended to help hold production flat and expand future recovery. The committee then received a presentation from the Tax Department on the federal “big beautiful bill” and its effect on North Dakota income tax collections. The department explained that most of the federal changes were extensions of existing Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions, but several items — including the larger standard deduction, senior deduction, tip and overtime exclusions, auto loan interest deduction, and business expensing changes — affect state collections. Revised estimates showed a smaller-than-expected impact on individual income tax, with the department suggesting a net cash effect in the range of roughly $30 million to $35 million when business and individual effects are combined, plus a possible one-time distortion from large oil-field transactions in fiscal year 2025. Members asked which provisions apply to standard versus itemized returns, and the department clarified that most of the individual provisions apply broadly, while the SALT-related item is itemizer-specific. OMB then reported on major capital projects and facility funding. Updates included Capitol grounds improvements such as 18th-floor renovations, wayfinding, augmented reality displays for the Rough Rider Hall of Fame, tree management and lighting studies, and restroom and parking reconfiguration in the tower. OMB also described security upgrades at the governor’s residence, where human remains were discovered on site and are being handled with historical and legal review. The state hospital project in Jamestown remains on schedule for substantial completion in winter 2027 and opening in spring 2028, with costs currently estimated a little over $292 million and a line of credit expected to be drawn in April 2027. The North Central State Office Building in Minot is under construction, with a $5.6 million line of credit already accessed. OMB also reported on the State Facility Maintenance Fund, noting about $1.1 million spent so far on projects such as the Liberty Memorial Building roof and foundation work, Capitol window replacement, boiler replacement, and kitchen remodeling. Finally, Legislative Council staff reviewed the interim compliance report on legislative intent and state trust funds. The report highlighted the status of multiple lines of credit, including those for the state hospital and Minot office building, and noted that the executive budget will likely need to include repayment planning for about $350 million of expected outstanding balances. Other updates included the Bank of North Dakota profit transfer schedule, litigation pool spending, the new Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship, the Missouri River Correctional Center planning effort, HHS items such as FMAP and child care assistance, Job Service’s unemployment insurance modernization project, and DPI school aid turnback estimates. No formal votes were taken beyond approval of the minutes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Next on cost share.
• For replacement projects, Deloitte is recommending a cost share percentage.
• cost share.
• value in that.
• Project costs going forward: construction costs total about $30 million.

Summary: The Water Topics Overview Committee met to receive interim status updates on several water-related studies and Department of Water Resources projects. The committee approved the March 26, 2026 minutes, observed a moment of silence for the late Representative Conmy, and then heard updates on the watershed management study and the stormwater/wastewater study. Staff reported that the committee had already received the testimony contemplated in the study plans, including input from state agencies, local governments, and out-of-state entities, and that any further action would be at the committee’s discretion. The Department of Water Resources then provided project and budget updates on NAWS and the Southwest Pipeline Project. Reese reported NAWS is expected to serve about 81,000 users, with a total projected cost of about $571 million and about $96 million remaining, while the Southwest Pipeline Project is estimated at $1.06 billion total with about $409 million remaining. Members asked about funding sources, capacity needs, and whether current and future construction is being designed for increased demand; department staff said current work is designed for ultimate capacity, but some future components may need redesign based on new requests. The committee also discussed local cost shares, Minot’s role in NAWS funding, and whether the system is adequate for peak demand. A major portion of the meeting focused on the department’s cash management, carryover, and long-term water funding outlook. The department said Resources Trust Fund revenues are tied to oil extraction taxes and are affected by stripper well exemptions and future oil price declines. Members expressed concern about large carryover balances and whether the state is obligating more money than can realistically be spent in a biennium. The department reported about $340.6 million in remaining carryover and said it is trying to reduce that through a two-tier pre-construction/construction process and closer project vetting. The department also summarized the Deloitte studies on regional governance and finance and on cost-share policy. Stakeholders generally favored keeping the current governance structures for NAWS and Southwest with improvements, while Red River stakeholders leaned toward a different option; the department said it will bring an implementation plan back in September. On cost share, Deloitte’s recommendations would reduce some percentages, prioritize projects differently, and use other measures to close a projected long-term funding gap. Members debated affordability, local burden, deferred maintenance, and whether statutory changes may be needed to allow the commission more flexibility in prioritizing and funding projects. No formal votes or final actions were taken beyond approving the minutes and receiving the updates.

Transcript Highlights:

• The cost of replacing staff is higher than keeping them.
• The<00:50:59.920> cost<00:51:00.240> of<00:51:00.640> replacing<00:51:02.079>
• staff<00:51:02.640> is<00:51:03.280> higher The cost of replacing staff is higher
• The cost of replacing staff is higher than<00:51:03.920> keeping<00:51:04.240> them.
• The other piece behind it is some of the repairs in the replacement fund are very low-dollar value.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• that the aate ammonia fertilizer costs that the aate ammonia fertilizer costs are<00:02:56.239><
• certainty to an area of significant cost certainty to an area of significant cost and<00:08:26.919
• If the CSGs raise the cost of electricity, theory were true, Xcel's kilowatt cost per hour should be
• If the CSGs raise the cost of electricity, theory were true, Xcel's kilowatt cost per hour should be
• So to figure out something's value, you must look at both the benefits and the costs.

Bills: HF2103, HF2793

Keywords: energy, renewable energy, ammonia, hydrogen, certificate tracking, funding, environment, community solar, energy policy, sustainability, solar garden program, regulation sunset, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• He said the department has 71 buildings across the state with a replacement value of $496 million and
• He said they have an 11.94%... replacement value of uh $496 million and replacement value of uh $496
• current replacement value is a little current replacement value is a little over<00:22:09.200>
• This is the total of costs for window replacements and roof replacements, heating and cooling upgrades
• <00:55:41.559> in replacement value about 215 million in replacement value about 215 million

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But the overall cost, the value of our market... ...the cost of the value of our marketplace, what we
• is how much it would cost to replace your house.
• If it now costs more year over year to replace your house, that means you need more insurance to replace
• The value of a house, meaning the replacement cost, so whether it's a $400,000 replacement cost or $750,000
• replacement cost, has a really big impact.

Summary: The subcommittee held its first meeting on homeowners property insurance, with members from both parties introducing themselves and repeatedly noting that insurance affordability, roof condition, claims handling, and storm recovery are top concerns for their districts. Chair Yeager said the meeting was intended as an educational discussion rather than a legislative debate, and introduced a panel that included Insurance Commissioner Mike Yaworski, consumer Chad Carr, agent Mary Catherine Lawler, insurer executive Melissa Burt DeVries, and policyholder attorney Chip Merlin. The panel and members discussed major cost drivers in Florida homeowners insurance, including inflation, home age, roof age, mitigation features, claims history, litigation costs, reinsurance, and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund. Commissioner Yaworski said underwriting has become more sophisticated and that litigation costs, reinsurance, and replacement-cost inflation all affect premiums; he also said litigation is down about 30% and average requested rate increases have fallen from about 22.1% in 2022 to 0.8% today. DeVries said age of home, replacement cost, roof age, and coverage choices can materially change premiums, and explained that reinsurance is a major expense passed through to consumers. Merlin emphasized transparency concerns, argued that insurers are increasingly individualizing risk, and said consumers often struggle with coverage limits, deductibles, and claim denials. Members asked about flood coverage, hurricane deductibles, managed repair programs, mitigation credits, new insurer capitalization, and whether savings from reforms are reaching consumers. Yaworski explained that flood is generally excluded from homeowners policies and covered separately, that hurricane deductibles are mandatory in Florida and usually around 5%, and that the office tracks savings from reforms through rate filings and insurer discussions. He said the state is updating mitigation discounts and monitoring new entrants closely for solvency and market conduct. Several members and panelists said recent reforms have helped reduce some abuses and litigation, but many consumers are still seeing higher premiums because replacement costs and reinsurance remain elevated. No votes or formal actions were taken.