Transcript Highlights:

• That could be calculated. It's going to... ...could be calculated.
• So there would be somewhat of an offset, and that would have to be calculated.
• The individual income tax records are in part used to help calculate that.
• The report contains the details of each levy calculated by a county.
• It's just not taxable for that current mill levy calculation.

Summary: The committee met to receive updates from the Tax Commissioner’s office on property tax relief programs and related compliance work. Commissioner Brian Croshys reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting that the Homestead program expanded significantly after HB 1158, that some households are “adjusting out” of eligibility as incomes rise, and that the committee may want to consider indexing income thresholds. Members asked for additional data on bracket breakdowns, possible costs of eliminating income limits for seniors, and how many households are zeroed out by the combined programs. Croshys also discussed the simpler administration of the disabled veteran credit, the growth in participation, and the heavy workload and auditing safeguards built into the new primary residence credit system. He said the department found no material compliance findings and that the program is designed to be digital-first, with county auditors and the Tax Commissioner’s office both involved in review and notification. The committee recessed for lunch and later reconvened, with the chair noting that more detailed PRC information would likely be available at a September meeting. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase, or “zero growth,” report and the 2025 statistical report. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and which jurisdictions showed the largest percentage changes in countywide, citywide, school district, and park district levies. In the statistical report, she summarized recent trends in assessed values: agricultural values remained relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed property values increased over the past five years. She also reviewed statewide tax levies by property class and clarified that centrally assessed growth figures were annual averages. Members discussed how shifts in land use and annexation can make it appear that tax burdens are moving from ag to residential/commercial property. Myers then summarized the interim study on the 3% levy limitation under HB 1176, saying most counties complied without budget changes, while some used hiring freezes, deferred purchases, or reserve funds; 23% of counties had to reduce levies, and the affected funds were mainly general, road and bridge, and weed control. She said 12 counties reported zero new growth in the data and that 35 counties reported not using all of their cap. The committee also received an oil tax presentation from Croshys on the stripper well extraction tax exemption. He outlined the number of active stripper wells, the production and revenue implications of the exemption, and projections for future biennia under different tax scenarios. He said the exemption represents substantial savings to operators but also corresponds to production tax revenue that would otherwise be collected, and he emphasized that future outcomes depend on oil prices, well counts, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly answered a question about why Red River wells have a different production threshold than Bakken wells, explaining it was tied to completion costs and lateral length. The committee then heard from Charlie Gorecki of the EERC, who presented an analysis of typical Bakken well decline curves and argued that most oil is produced before a well reaches stripper status, but that keeping wells open and investing in refracturing or other interventions can recover additional production. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; the main actions were receiving reports, asking for follow-up data, and scheduling further discussion for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• received at its hearing on the bill, and essentially the Senate position is that it makes sense to calculate
• <00:02:55.360> this<00:02:55.680> number sense to calculate this number sense to calculate
• is what's the rationale for calculating is what's the rationale for calculating the<00:03:12.959
• Uh but we thought their calculation.
• methods of calculating it and going<00:04:43.360> with<00:04:43.600> one<00:04:43.759>

Keywords: 9:30am HB 557 11am HB 71, 928, house, all

Summary: The committee of conference first discussed House Bill 557, which concerns information on the school budget ballot. The main issue was how to define and calculate the “average cost per pupil.” House members favored a simple calculation dividing the operating budget by enrollment, arguing that it is clearer to the public and matches how taxpayers think about school costs. Senate members preferred the existing RSA-based definition for consistency across statutes and noted that the current definition was about to take effect. Members also debated whether the ballot language should specify the figure as being for the “preceding year,” and some House members ultimately agreed to that clarification while one member did not. After discussion, the Senate declined to move off its position on the calculation method, but agreed to a compromise amendment adding “for the preceding year” to the Senate language so it would align with the rest of the ballot information. The committee then agreed to draft the report with that amendment. The committee then turned to House Bill 71, dealing with restrictions on using public school and higher education facilities to shelter certain migrants, along with a Senate-added provision requiring DHHS contracts to comply with the patient bill of rights. Members generally said they supported the base policy of the bill, but Representative Noble raised a drafting concern about a repeal section that appeared to undo the new contract requirement; the group discussed removing that repeal language and adjusting effective dates. The committee also reviewed Senate-added language creating a donation fund for a proposed accessible pier at Hampton Beach. Supporters said the project would be privately funded through donations, with the state park division managing the fund and any remaining balance eventually transferring to an existing state park donations account if the pier is not built. Members questioned maintenance costs, fundraising responsibility, and whether the account was necessary, but the Senate explained the fund was intended to provide a mechanism for private fundraising and future maintenance support.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you don't have it, that's just the calculations I'm looking for.
• The calculation wouldn't have changed.
• That's just a placeholder for calculations.
• So what happens in this formula calculation we see here?
• That's a federally recognized way to calculate the FTE.

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review how North Dakota might identify and address low-producing academic programs and to discuss draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the NDUS explained that the State Board of Higher Education is already developing a system-wide policy, using models from other states such as Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, and Connecticut. She described how low-producing programs are typically flagged by multi-year enrollment or completion thresholds, then reviewed for workforce demand, mission fit, cost, accreditation, and regional need before any action is taken. Committee members asked about what counts as a program, how costs are analyzed, whether certificates are included, how exemptions work for mission-critical or high-demand fields, and whether the board or legislature should set the rules. Johnson said the board is the appropriate body to lead the process, but legislators could use funding leverage if they wanted to encourage action; the chair asked the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal uses fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder undergraduate rate of $7,000 per FTE and a graduate/professional rate of $10,500, plus incentives for completions in in-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council walked through the projected funding effects, noting that the model would increase funding for NDSU and reduce it for UND in the current biennium, with different results in the next biennium as enrollment changes are recognized. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the definition of in-demand programs, the treatment of research funding, and the exclusion of state-appropriated dollars from the external grants calculation. The chair emphasized that the numbers were illustrative and that appropriators would set the actual dollar amounts later. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. That model uses fall census FTE without a weighted economic factor, applies a higher undergraduate rate, and adds completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other completions. Members noted that the formula would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and discussed whether the nine institutions should be treated more uniformly or split into smaller groups because of their different missions and sizes. Committee members and staff repeatedly stressed that the formulas are still being refined and that some institutions would likely need hold-harmless adjustments or other transition measures. The meeting ended with the chair directing the committee to continue the discussion later and to expect further work on both the low-producing program policy and the funding formulas.

Transcript Highlights:

• Currently, the counties are calculating tax rates and calculating tax due on individual properties.
• and um we we'll tax base is calculated and um we we'll get<00:08:43.440> into<00:08:43.680>
• is just the estimated market calculation is just the estimated market value<00:09:38.000> or<
• as the estimated market value calculated as the estimated market value minus<00:10:13.399> any
• So for a property taxpayer that's receiving a credit, the county will calculate their total property

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House Tax Committee met to hear a House Research presentation from Jared Swanson on Minnesota’s property tax system. Before the presentation, the chair announced that the committee would put the governor’s budget on hold until the department could provide the information needed for a proper hearing. The committee then approved the prior meeting minutes without objection. Swanson gave an overview of how property taxes are structured and collected in Minnesota, explaining that the state uses a levy-based system in which local governments set levies and counties collect and distribute payments. He described the property tax cycle, the difference between referendum market value and net tax capacity, and how classification rates shift tax burdens among property types. He also outlined the state general property tax, noting it is split between commercial-industrial property and seasonal recreational property, and reviewed how Minnesota compares with other states, with residential taxes generally around the middle and commercial-industrial taxes relatively higher. The presentation also covered major property tax relief and aid programs. Swanson explained three broad relief mechanisms: shifting burdens through exclusions and classification rates, state-paid credits and refunds, and state aid to local governments or levy reductions. He discussed local government aid (LGA), township aid, and county program aid (CPA), including their funding levels, formulas, and general-purpose nature. Members asked why some cities receive no LGA and how the funds may be used; Swanson said cities with strong tax bases often receive zero aid and that the money generally can be used for the same purposes as property tax revenue. No votes were taken on the presentation itself.

Transcript Highlights:

• statewide teacher salary is based on 79.1% of a comparable employee, and that's as calculated by our
• statewide teacher salary is based on 79.1% of a comparable employee, and that's as calculated by our
• <00:15:51.440> So<00:15:51.839> it's calculated by our consultants.
• So it's calculated by our consultants.
• ,<01:10:41.520> um, elective teachers are calculated, um, elective teachers are calculated

Bills: HB0159

Keywords: student rights, free expression, K-12 education, speech protection, religious views, political speech, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Also, and then we certify those values to the counties, and then they calculate and apply a tax to it
• <00:10:42.800> and the counties and then they calculate and the counties and then they calculate
• the tax uh it concerning to calculating the tax uh it would<00:27:02.399> be<00:27:02.640>
• Do they do it through a property tax calculation? Do they do it through gross revenues?
• How are you calculating what are you using for inflation? I mean, you're not using CPI, I hope.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Antone who asked about how... ...calculate it. And when I think it was Rep.
• So this is fascinating to me that you can calculate lost wages for an unborn fetus.
• So. ...to me that you can calculate lost wages for an unborn fetus.
• I do want to reiterate that this bill does not change the calculation of damages.
• Amongst what this bill does not change is how loss of earnings are calculated.

Summary: The committee first heard HB 133, which would lower the minimum age to purchase a long gun from 21 to 18. The sponsor said the bill restores the rights of law-abiding 18-year-olds. Public testimony was sharply divided, with supporters from Gun Owners of America and Florida Carry arguing that adults 18 and older should have equal Second Amendment rights and that current law is inconsistent with other adult responsibilities, while opponents, including gun violence prevention advocates, students, parents, and Parkland-related speakers, said the bill would reverse a post-Parkland safety measure and increase risks of suicide, accidental shootings, and school violence. Several members debated the bill, with opponents emphasizing Parkland, the Florida State shooting, and public polling showing broad opposition; supporters stressed parental responsibility, mental health, and constitutional rights. HB 133 was then reported favorably on a roll call vote of 13 yeas, with several members voting no. The committee then took up CS/HB 289, which would revise Florida’s wrongful death law to allow parents to recover damages for the death of an unborn child. The sponsor said the bill is intended to let grieving parents seek civil remedies, and members questioned how it would apply in situations involving surrogacy, rape, ectopic pregnancy, medical care, and damages calculations. The sponsor said the bill would not allow suits against the mother, would not apply to lawful non-negligent medical care, and would be handled through ordinary wrongful death damage proof before a jury. Public testimony was again split: supporters from pro-life and faith groups said the bill recognizes unborn children and aligns Florida with many other states, while opponents from civil liberties, reproductive rights, and advocacy groups warned it could be used to target abortion providers, helpers, and even families or businesses in miscarriage-related cases, and could be weaponized by abusive partners. The transcript ends during testimony on HB 289, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to which, uh, Social Security in are generally calculated to a certain are generally calculated
• which would be used for the calculation which would be used for the calculation of<02:10:00.159>
• of the total gross income is calculated of the total gross income is calculated and<02:10:16.239
• So since the calculating alimony.
• or the child without using a calculator or the child support<02:18:27.040> calculator,<02:18:

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The ESSA school index has currently not been calculated for '24 and '25.
• The ESS school index has currently not been calculated for 24 and 25.
• And that is no longer being calculated as of 2024.
• These are the indicators used to calculate the letter grades for 2025.
• DESE calculates these in the same manner.

Keywords: 1204, all

Summary: The committee received a Bureau of Legislative Research presentation on Arkansas academic standards, accountability, and achievement as part of the adequacy study. Staff reviewed how state curriculum and standards have evolved from the 1997 Public Education Act, the 2003 Quality Education Act, and the 2017 Educational Support and Accountability Act, including required course offerings, graduation requirements, career and technical education pathways, and recent additions such as success-ready pathways, Arkansas history, firearm safety, and fetal growth and development instruction. Members asked for a comparative chart showing how the laws and requirements changed over time, and staff agreed to provide one. The presentation then turned to the federal ESSA plan and Arkansas’s state accountability system. Staff explained the state’s long-term goals for 2030, including 80% proficiency in ELA and math, 52% of English learners on track to English proficiency, and 94%/97% four- and five-year graduation rates. They reviewed 2025 assessment results showing proficiency rates generally in the 30s, with English learners and students with disabilities performing lowest and white students highest. They also discussed school support and improvement categories, equitable access to educators, and report card/public reporting requirements, noting that some ESSA-related measures such as the school index, equity labs, and certain 2024 report card data were not currently available or not being calculated. Members questioned whether those ESSA commitments were being met and asked staff to follow up with DESE, including whether the legislature can revise the ESSA plan. The committee also reviewed the Arkansas Accountability Act and related assessment data. Staff described the Atlas assessment system, alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities, ELPA 21 for English learners, ACT results, and NAEP comparisons. They reported that no student group met the 80% proficiency goal in 2025, Arkansas’s ACT composite score declined slightly over time, and Arkansas generally trailed national and SREB averages on NAEP. Members asked for additional data, including historical highs and lows, the number of assessments students take by grade, dropout data, and comparisons with other states. The meeting ended with agreement to invite the Department of Education to a future meeting to answer questions about missing data, equity labs, report cards, and ESSA compliance.

Transcript Highlights:

• I had a question on how we are now calculating emergency certified teachers.
• So I do know, yes We did calculate those that had certification.
• Complicated calculation based.
• Calculation.
• Calculation, and depends on who makes the calculation, but I think your calculation for per pupil expenditures

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• calculator like we And I thought to myself, what if we had a divorce calculator, like we have a child
• support calculator?
• The child support calculator is already on the court website. It already deals with kids.
• And my brother, you know, the child support calculator, he just went and typed it all up.
• The child support calculator can spit out everything. Both sides can agree.

Bills: HB2311, HB2371, HB2409, HB2410, HB2456, HB2457, HB4005

Keywords: artificial intelligence, disclosure requirements, data privacy, minor protection, online safety, HB2371, Arizona divorce, family law, dissolution of marriage, AI arbitration, AI-assisted arbitration, automated dispute resolution, online arbitration, binding determination, recommendation, superior court appeal, de novo review, marital dissolution, spousal consent, minor children

Summary: The committee met in a special morning session and first heard HB 2371, a pilot proposal to allow consenting divorcing parties without minor children to use AI-assisted arbitration in simple divorce cases. Rep. Martinez described it as a voluntary, fairness-focused tool for people who cannot afford lawyers, with the judge retaining final authority. Members raised concerns about the bill’s binding-language, privacy, and the need for clearer guardrails on assets and support, but the sponsor said amendments were welcome. The committee voted 7-0 to give HB 2371 a do pass recommendation. The committee then took up HB 2311, which requires conversational AI systems to notify minors they are interacting with AI, restrict sexual content, prohibit deceptive human impersonation, and require self-harm response protocols. Google testified in support, saying its Gemini product already uses similar safeguards and that the bill would set an industry-wide floor; a speaker also noted similar measures are being considered in several other states. After adopting a committee amendment clarifying customer-service AI and limiting developer liability, the committee voted 7-0 to recommend HB 2311 do pass as amended. Next, the committee heard HB 2409, creating a voluntary statewide summer AI education program focused on digital hygiene, civic integrity, privacy, media literacy, critical thinking, and algorithmic bias. Supporters argued Arizona needs to prepare residents for AI-driven job disruption and help people use the technology to become more self-sufficient, while opponents objected to the program’s funding and potential unfunded mandate to the education department. The bill passed 4-3. HB 2410, which would treat communications with AI as privileged like communications with human professionals, also passed after testimony from the sponsor and a criminal defense advocate who argued the measure would protect sensitive legal and personal conversations; the vote was 6-0 with one member present. The committee then approved HB 4005, requiring school districts and charter schools to provide instruction on ethical, moral, and educational uses of AI, by a 4-2-1 vote after some members said schools lacked resources and should not be mandated to add curriculum without funding. Finally, the committee considered HB 2456 and HB 2457, both related to small modular nuclear reactors and utility siting/streamlining for energy development tied to large power users. Supporters framed them as necessary for future energy demand, data centers, and economic growth, while opponents raised concerns about local zoning authority and environmental oversight. Both bills were amended and advanced on 4-3 votes, and the meeting adjourned after the final roll calls.

Transcript Highlights:

• top you'll see the payment calculations top you'll see the payment calculations and<01:10:28.960
• in the child support calculation.
• , that when you look at the calculations, that when you look at the calculations, it<01:12:51.840
• <01:29:40.880> what of both parties by um calculating what of both parties by um calculating
• number when it's put into the calculator number when it's put into the calculator will<01:30:08.719

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There was also a recommendation in that report that the legislature should direct agencies to calculate
• There was also a recommendation in that report that the legislature should direct agencies to calculate
• There was also a recommendation in that report that the legislature should direct agencies to calculate
• There was also a recommendation in that report that the legislature should direct agencies to calculate
• the things that we're looking to calculate here.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• relating to multiple tax rates, and that new construction be rolled into the Hancock Amendment calculations
• Those would get stuck into the new current calculated rate without the voters actually authorizing the
• It would change the calculation. It would change the calculation.
• And I'm going to tell you, the figure was not done on any calculations on my part.
• We're just going to get it from you because it's still in our CPI calculation.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This is an award language change requesting utilization of the new gross square foot calculator allowing
• This is also an award language change requesting the utilization of the gross square foot calculator,
• So, there's a number in here that are requesting the new gross square footage calculator.
• The second part of the motion is to determine the PSCOC rate per MEM to calculate the Lease Assistance
• Just for clarification for new members: Our lease assistance is determined per statute by calculating

Transcript Highlights:

• That could be calculated. It's going to... Could be calculated.
• So there would be somewhat of an offset, and that would have to be calculated. Senator Rummel.
• The tax levy report contains the details of each levy calculated by a county.
• It's just not taxable for that current mill levy calculation.
• And the calculations I presented are all taking that discount into effect.

Summary: The Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met with a quorum, approved the March 17, 2026 minutes, and heard a lengthy update from Tax Commissioner Brian Croshys on property tax relief programs. He reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting increased relief after House Bill 1158 and House Bill 1176, but also discussing how some households “income adjust out” of eligibility over time. Members asked about indexing income thresholds, expanding eligibility by age alone, simplifying administration, county-level notices, and whether the county and state systems could be streamlined. Croshys said the programs are heavily used, largely administered at the county level, and that the department is still refining compliance and reporting; he also said there were no material findings or overarching concerns in the latest review. The committee agreed more detailed PRC information would likely come back in a September meeting, and the chair announced an afternoon recess for lunch before later reconvening. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase report, the zero-growth report, and a statistical report on property values and tax levies by class. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and identified counties and cities with the largest percentage changes in growth or decline. She also summarized recent trends: agricultural values remain relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed values have risen over the last five years; in 2025, residential property accounted for the largest share of statewide property tax levies, followed by commercial, agriculture, and centrally assessed property. Committee members asked about unusual zero-growth figures, the effect of annexation and land-use changes, and whether the 3% levy cap was forcing political subdivisions to use reserves or defer spending. Myers said many counties complied by using reserves, delaying capital projects, or limiting increases, and that some counties had not used their full cap. The committee then moved to the stripper oil extraction tax exemption. Commissioner Croshys reviewed the state’s oil tax structure and estimated the revenue impact of keeping stripper wells exempt from extraction tax while still paying production tax. He said the exemption saves operators hundreds of millions of dollars over a biennium, while the state still collects production tax on those wells. He also discussed projected impacts if the exemption were changed for future wells and noted that future outcomes depend on oil prices, production declines, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly explained the historical difference between the 35-barrel and 30-barrel thresholds for certain wells, citing differences in completion costs and lateral lengths. The committee then heard from EERC CEO Charles Gorecki, who presented an analysis of oil well life cycles and said most oil is produced before wells reach stripper status, but that refracturing or other reinvestment can significantly extend production and keep wells above the threshold for years.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, quick calculation I did for the $400,000 house that we talked about.
• And that's as far as I'd gotten in the calculations before we came up here.
• <00:15:02.639> I<00:15:02.880> think can calculate for this group.
• I think can calculate for this group.
• So next year, when it still is frozen, we might be able to calculate that. >> Quick question.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <01:30:55.400> the calculate the calculate the total<01:30:57.480> and<01:30:58.199>
• that would be used in the calculation that would be used in the calculation you're<01:42:06.199>
• <01:42:16.000> of warrants including the calculation of warrants including the calculation
• calculation calculation um<01:44:00.679> in<01:44:00.880> this<01:44:01.360> in
• try to do per student calculations try to do per student calculations because<04:34:47.439> we

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first discussed HB 443, which would change terms and vacancy language for members of a higher education commission. Members raised concerns that the bill was too narrow to address broader issues with commission membership, including expired appointments, attendance expectations, and whether the Department of Education could replace the commission’s role. Several members suggested the bill was not ready for action and favored holding it for further work, possibly through a subcommittee or work session. One member suggested that if attendance standards were added, no more than two unexcused absences should trigger removal, given the commission’s meeting schedule. The chair said he would defer action and form a small subcommittee to report back before the committee deadline. The committee then moved to HB 484, dealing with repurposing Career and Technical Education classroom space after 20 years of exclusive use. The chair explained that the bill was aimed at the Milford CTE project, where shared use of space could allow a school to repurpose part of a CTE facility while still using it for CTE-related instruction. Members discussed other possible situations around the state, including Claremont, North Conway, and Jaffrey/Rindge, and whether the bill should be limited to Milford or broadened to allow local districts more flexibility. Some members favored passing the bill now to help CTE projects move forward, while others argued for an amendment removing the requirement that the space be vacated specifically to expand the CTE program occupying it. Testimony and discussion emphasized that the Milford project had state approval but reduced funding, requiring a smaller scope and repurposing of existing space. Supporters said the bill could help preserve CTE programs while also benefiting general education space needs, and that local districts should have flexibility after 20 years. Opponents or cautious members noted that the language might not fit every district situation and asked for feedback from Director Beard and Steve Rothenberg before final action. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion provided, and instead discussed waiting for an amendment and additional input before acting.

Transcript Highlights:

• You should have the following documents in the packet before you: a summary of the FEFP calculation,
• You should have the following documents in the packet before you: a summary of the FEFP calculation,
• The bill also clarifies a conflict between two statutes regarding how school grades are calculated for
• The amendment incorporates feedback from staff to clarify how school grades are calculated by DOE for
• What is the calculated scholarship amount for the next year?

Summary: The committee first heard the Pre-K-12 education budget proposal for fiscal year 2025-26 and voted to adopt it as the committee’s recommendation to the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The proposed $34.7 billion budget includes increases for the FEFP, Family Empowerment Scholarships, VPK, school safety, the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind, school hardening, Jewish day school security, and an education enrollment stabilization fund. Members asked no questions on the budget before it was advanced, and staff was authorized to make technical corrections. The committee then passed CS/SB 1402, which expands eligibility for dropout retrieval services to any individual who has withdrawn from high school and clarifies how school grades are calculated for virtual instruction providers that offer only dropout retrieval services. An amendment to clarify the grading calculation was adopted without objection, and the bill was reported favorably after a roll call vote. The committee also took up SPB 7030, a comprehensive scholarship-program bill sponsored by Senator Gates, which would separate Family Empowerment Scholarship funding as its own categorical, expand the education stabilization fund, create fall and spring application windows, require a single scholarship application and more documentation, assign student IDs, change payments to a monthly schedule, require background checks for paid instructional providers, mandate annual FTE audits by the Auditor General, and standardize reimbursement and eligibility procedures. After extensive discussion and public testimony, the bill was adopted as a committee bill and reported favorably, with Senator Osgood voting no. Finally, the committee considered CS/SB 508, which requires private schools participating in the Family Empowerment Scholarship Program to disclose in writing what accommodations, modifications, and services they will provide for students with existing plans such as IEPs, 504 plans, or ELL plans. An amendment was adopted to require public schools to consult with private schools about equitable services, and the bill was reported favorably. Public testimony included support from parent-choice advocates and concerns from private-school representatives about administrative burden and the scope of the required disclosures. The meeting concluded after the final roll call votes and adjournment motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• for that student, and it's a very precise calculation.
• for that student, and it's a very precise calculation.
• for that student, and it's a very precise calculation.
• for that student, and it's a very precise calculation.
• for that student, and it's a very precise calculation.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Department of Education’s Bureau of School Finance provided an adequacy-funding training for Division II, led by Mark Mello. He walked the committee through the adequacy formula using Albany, Allenstown, and Alton as examples, explaining average daily membership, base adequacy aid, and differential aid for free/reduced-price meals, special education, and English language learners. He also noted a recent change requiring home-education differential aid and emphasized that these aid streams are generally unrestricted district funding rather than money tied to specific students or programs. A major focus was the ongoing litigation over the adequacy base amount and the statewide education property tax, or SWEPT. Mello explained the historical basis of the current base amount, the 2008 legislative report that set the original methodology, and the later court ruling that the adequacy amount should be $7,356, which is now before the Supreme Court. He also described how SWEPT currently raises a fixed statewide amount of $363 million and how that revenue is used to offset the state’s adequacy obligation. For the example towns, Albany and Allenstown receive state adequacy grants because their SWEPT revenue is below their calculated adequacy cost, while Alton is an excess SWEPT community because its local SWEPT revenue exceeds the cost of adequate education. The discussion then turned to the pending “excess SWEPT” issue in the Supreme Court and what would happen if excess collections had to be remitted to the state. Mello said the Department is preparing a hypothetical walkthrough and explained that, if the court upholds the Superior Court ruling, DRA would likely be directed to collect excess SWEPT. Members raised concerns about whether SWEPT must be used for educational purposes and about the cash-flow burden on towns if money had to move from municipalities to the state and then back to districts. Mello and members discussed possible administrative workarounds, such as credits against other state aid distributions, and noted that the committee would continue reviewing the mechanics if the court decision comes down during budget work.