Transcript Highlights:

• And if they had fiscal concerns related to the section that were real, they wouldn't be risking more
• <00:11:14.600> concerns and if they if they had fiscal concerns and if they if they had fiscal
• this change would involve analysis this change would involve significant<00:28:12.519> additional
• it if if the department CA uh analysis it if if the department CA if<00:51:15.240> their<00:51
• But what he was talking to you about was analysis that the PUC had conducted internally.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But do you do analysis? Does Das do an...
• Thirdly, we are asking for the money to do a staffing analysis.
• We had ongoing Fiscal years 13 and 14 had ongoing maintenance and enhancements for fiscal years 15 through
• But every year, come August or September, at the end of the federal fiscal year, we will...
• Uh, we managed roughly $37 million fiscal year by fiscal year in grants, and this $375,000 And this $375,000

Keywords: 928, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:06:22.479> impact without any significant fiscal impact without any significant fiscal
• But my go to fiscal if there is a need.
• <01:20:21.600> from derived frameworks for analysis from derived frameworks for analysis from
• <01:56:25.920> of Specifically, I mentioned my analysis of Specifically, I mentioned my analysis
• We never heard about the fiscal note.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And you then go from 40 to 30 to 20 in our most recent analysis.
• The fiscal note that the department gave you identifies the technical flaws.
• The fiscal note that the into why.
• He said the DRA analysis illustrates how complicated the issue is in the bill.
• ,<02:04:54.880> the and based on the growth analysis, the and based on the growth analysis

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We were able to do a full-scale analysis of both fires.
• That is not only a finding that we had from this post-fire analysis, but also when we deployed to the
• And we were able to do a full-scale analysis of both fires.
• And that is not only a finding that we had from this post-fire analysis, but also when we deployed to
• Therefore, Cal Fire is requesting $6.1 million from the General Fund and 31 positions in fiscal year

Summary: The Assembly Budget Subcommittee on Climate Crisis, Resources, Energy, and Transportation held an oversight hearing on home hardening and defensible space as wildfire mitigation strategies. The chair opened by stressing that California has reached a tipping point, with repeated community-scale wildfire losses, rising insurance costs, and growing utility wildfire mitigation expenses. The hearing was organized around four panels: what home hardening and defensible space are, community risk reduction and coordination, evaluation of current defensible space programs and proposed investments, and the future of home hardening and the California Wildfire Mitigation Program. The first panel featured IBHS, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, and local wildfire mitigation advocates. IBHS described wildfire spread through embers, flames, and radiant heat, emphasizing that structure separation, removing combustible materials within the first five feet of a home, and combining multiple mitigation measures significantly reduce loss. It highlighted its Wildfire Prepared Home and Wildfire Prepared Neighborhood standards, including an “essential” and “enhanced” level, and said California is ahead of other states but still needs scalable, standardized, and sustainably funded mitigation. The LAO outlined key policy questions for the Legislature, including the state’s role, intergovernmental coordination, cost-effectiveness, program design, measurement of success, long-term sustainability, and barriers to implementation. The chair and panelists discussed estimated costs, including roughly $15,000 for a basic retrofit and about $50,000 for more extensive ignition-resistant construction, and whether state funding should focus on the most cost-effective initial measures. The second panel focused on scaling adoption through local coordination, education, financing, and community-based programs. Megafire Action argued that home hardening is a market adoption problem and said the state should not try to pay for every home, but instead target high-leverage interventions across the “customer journey,” including education, financing, trusted certification, and neighborhood network effects. Ventura Regional Fire Safe Council described free home assessments, small retrofit grants, Firewise community support, and the importance of neighborhood-level action, local capacity, and cultural change. Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority described its locally funded model, grant program, public education efforts, and an Ember Ready program that helps residents navigate home hardening and Zone Zero compliance. The chair repeatedly emphasized the need for a coordinated statewide marketing campaign, stronger incentives, better insurance discounts, and more use of local, utility, federal, and private funding sources. The third and fourth panels addressed Cal Fire’s defensible space inspection program, the proposed defensible space financial assistance program, and broader state investments. Cal Fire said homes lacking compliant defensible space are far more likely to be damaged or destroyed and requested ongoing funding and staffing to stabilize inspections statewide; the LAO suggested the Legislature consider alternative funding sources such as GGRF or a reinstated SRA fee. Cal Fire and the State Fire Marshal explained that Zone Zero sets a minimum standard, local governments cannot go below it, and grant prioritization will favor jurisdictions that submit inspections. Cal Fire also said the new defensible space financial assistance program would focus on ember-resistant zone-zero work and, in the Southern California counties covered by the legislation, would assist about 3,125 homes at an estimated $8,000 per home. In the final panel, the State Fire Marshal described California’s layered strategy of parcel-level home hardening, defensible space, and neighborhood-scale mitigation, along with technical support, financial assistance, and incentives such as insurance discounts and builder marketing. The overall theme was that California must move from isolated efforts to a coordinated, science-based, and scalable statewide approach to reduce wildfire losses.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, we did an analysis on that one question.
• No formal fiscal analysis has been publicly produced for the implementation of these revised TEKS.
• No formal fiscal analysis has been publicly produced for the implementation of these revised TEKS.
• So I urge this legislature to require an independent fiscal analysis before adoption.
• So I urge this legislature to require an independent fiscal analysis before adoption, investigate conflicts

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• According to the analysis I'm looking at, once again,...
• The bill has no fiscal notes. I move passage.
• We'd have to run that analysis.
• analysis of what they determine as far as fact or credibility?
• So I'm reading the bill analysis, and the bill analysis says that it's going to re...

Bills: HB75, HB188, HB199, HB4029, HB330, HB507, HB524, HB1517, HB 1065, HB1375, HB1630, HB1398, HB 1227, HB689, HB1814, HB2160, HB2140, HB4897, HB5600, HB5489, HB4188, HB2881, HB2048, HB3900, HB4074, HB5568, HB5528, HB3811, HB3726, HB3382, HB4507, HB4775, HB3626, HB3569, HB5212, HB5248, HB5178, HB3453, HB3231, HB3941, HB1571, HB1969, HB1865, HB2879, HB2643, HB4799, HB4891, HB5567, HB5549, HB5187, HB5118, HB3191, HB1730, HB1687, HB2192, HB4511, HB4805, HB1863, HB3195, HB3199, HB5562, HB5551, HB5169, HB3290, HB3712, HB3996, HB5098, HB5097, HB5089, HB3897, HB3868, HB3829, HB4840, HB3753, HB4368, HB4142, HB2841, HB3457, HB3784, HCR46, HCR109, HCR10, SB1844, SB1833, SB2284, SB2052, SB1666, SB1265, SB1146, SB1921, SB480, SB1734, SB296, SB2039, SB462, SB1646, SB2173, SB2925, SB682, SB1173, HB4535, HB4520, HB3824, HB3066, HB2442, HB3863, HB4773, HB4327, HB5115, HB5515, HB3372, HB5659, HB 127, HB386, HB 115, HB2868, HB 1249, HB4766, HB3720, HB4879, HB5383, HB4621, HB5431, HB5678, HB5534, HB4212, HB3954, HB3966, HB3918, HB1422, HB4765, HB4732, HB4742, HB4518, HB5084, HB3986, HB4144, HB3976, HB4473, HB3425, HB3641, HB3642, HB3475, HB3424, HB4744, HB4539, HB3159, HB5228, HB5370, HB4359, HB4443, HB4466, HB3849, HB4240, HB5141, HB5686, HB3629, HB3554, HB3567, HB2015, HB3575, HB5381, HB4398, HB3514, HB4614, HB4546, HB5681, HB5663, HB4271, HB4350, HB4035, HB3812, HB3540, HB3715, HB3664, HB4233, HB3333, HB3510, HB4222, HB2070, HB2854, HB2347, HB 113, HJR218, HB5623, HB4921, HB5673, HB5520, HB 105, HB4685, HB5354, HB4683, HB75, HB983, HB4847, HB1449, HB3833, HB5151, HB265, HB1845, HB782, HB 108, HB1960, HB158, HB1954, HB1955, HB2512, HB605, HB2581, HB2803, HB627, HB2667, HB1738, HB636, HB3679, HB2638, HB2655, HB871, HB2438, HB 1107, HB1765, HB1822, HB2153, HB4099, HB3732, HB3171, HB3178, HB3182, HB3749, HB2814, HB3977, HB4204, HB4207, HB4449, HB1820, HB1876, HB1939, HB1347, HB2593, HB2136, HB2132, HB2658, HB2413, HB2757, HB2080, HB3154, HB3063, HB3009, HB3448, HB3006, HB2844, HB3241, HB3680, HB3169, HB2078, HB2507, HB4559, HB3946, HB3460, HB3405, HB475, HB3463, HB3441, HB3441, HB3520, HB2060, HB4731, HB4991, HB1991, HB5596, HB2014, HB2142, HB2673, HB2731, HB2417, HB2399, HB2301, HB2301, HB3335, HB3234, HB3320, HB5573, HB5573, HB4848, HB4848, HB4748, HB4769, HB4795, HB2086, HB2086, HB2234, HB2234, HB2203, HB4916, HB5624, HB4505, HB139, HB5093, HB5302, HB5402, HB5606, HB2333, HB4630, HB4701, HB2583, HB2983, HB4924, HB3339, HB3339, HB3793, HB3631, HB4882, HB5509, HB5499, HB5430, HB5561, HB5561, HB5611, HB5043, HB5064, HB5064, HB3733, HB3733, HB3781, HB3219, HB32, HB4515, HB5348, HB3902, HB4420, HB3269, HB469, HB336, HB316, HB5396, HB993, HB1342, HB1342, HB5216, HB2046, HB2046, HB2188, HB2188, HB2450, HB2813, HB2857, HB4075, HB4075, HB2911, HB4682, HB4682, HB3117, HB3253, HB3442, HB4820, HB4336, HB5356, HB3669, HB3428, HB5465, HB3662, HB2590, HB2288, HB2288, HB1886, HB3458, HB3458, HB5603, HB5620, HB1489, HB1489, HB4101, HB4990, HB5685, HB5685, HB4950, HB4950, HB4980, HB5684, HB3507, HB3507, HB3566, HB4487, HB4487, HB4462, HB4462, HB4876, HB4915, HB4663, HB5570, HB2929, HB5261, HB2920, HB4642, HB4746, HB1609, HB5403, HB5453, HB3844, HB2336, HB1572, HB 1226, HB 1226, HB2806, HB2806, HB2617, HB2617, HB2827, HB3948, HB3948, HB3945, HB4266, HB4542, HB3319, HB1772, HB2496, HB1970, HB3434, HB5545, HB5545, HB5577, HB5577, HB31, HB31, HB279, HB370, HB370, HB4768, HB513, HB875, HB982, HB 1085, HB 1085, HB2677, HB2874, HB5478, HB4880, HB4798, HB4514, HB4958, HB4958, HB4508, HB4508, HB3758, HB3830, HB3744, HB3622, HB741, HB741, HB2204, HB2204, HB2860, HB4659, HB4578, HB813, HB712, HB712, HB1551, HB2790, HB2698, HB3365, HB3504, HB3118, HB3118, HB2959, HB1862, HB1862, HB 1026, HB4401, HB4401, HB4164, HB4164, HB3920, HB4737, HB4966, HB4966, HB4967, HB1958, HB4979, HB4979, HB5459, HB3862, HB1823, HB1823, HB4415, HB4893, HB2343, HB 1228, HB4337, HB188, HB199, HB4029, HB330, HB507, HB524, HB1517, HB 1065, HB1375, HB1630, HB1398, HB 1227, HB689, HB689, HB1814, HB2160, HB2140, HB4897, HB5600, HB5489, HB4188, HB2881, HB2048, HB3900, HB4074, HB5568, HB5528, HB3811, HB3726, HB3382, HB3382, HB4507, HB4775, HB3626, HB3569, HB5212, HB5248, HB5178, HB3453, HB3231, HB3941, HB1571, HB1969, HB1865, HB2879, HB2879, HB2643, HB4799, HB4891, HB5567, HB5549, HB5187, HB5118, HB3191, HB1730, HB1687, HB1687, HB2192, HB4511, HB4805, HB4805, HB1863, HB3195, HB3199, HB5562, HB5562, HB5551, HB5169, HB3290, HB3712, HB3996, HB5098, HB5098, HB5097, HB5089, HB5089, HB3897, HB3868, HB3829, HB4840, HB3753, HB4368, HB4142, HB2841, HB3457, HB3784, HCR76, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40, HCR118, HR559, HCR59, HCR59, HCR135, HCR141, HCR46, HCR46, HCR109, HCR10

Keywords: magistrate, criminal procedure, probable cause, written findings, law enforcement, Texas STRONG defense fund, severance tax revenue, oil and gas revenue, constitutional transfers, rainy day fund, economic stabilization fund, state highway fund, oil and gas production, qualifying county, county grants, water infrastructure, first responders, public safety, DPS staffing, commercial motor vehicle safety

Transcript Highlights:

• Also in your packet is a spreadsheet from the MN House Fiscal Analysis Office.
• spreadsheet from the MN House fiscal spreadsheet from the MN House fiscal analysis<00:05:05.560>
• Fiscal year 2026, you see $4.588 million.
• I have a question, probably more for fiscal staff.
• <00:13:04.680> year fiscal year fiscal year 2025<00:13:06.600> was<00:13:06.839> that

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: House File 5 was heard in the Transportation Committee and moved by the author, Representative Jim Joy, to be referred to the Tax Committee. Joy described the bill as a package to make Minnesota more affordable by fully eliminating the Social Security tax subtraction, ending the motor fuels tax indexing, repealing the retail delivery fee, and studying vehicle registration/license taxes compared with neighboring states. Committee fiscal staff explained the bill’s fiscal effects across the general fund, highway user tax distribution fund, transportation advancement account, and metro county sales tax allocations, including that the delivery fee repeal would reduce Transportation Advancement Account revenue and that the bill would shift some revenue sources to offset losses. Several stakeholders testified. The Minnesota Grocers Association strongly supported repealing the retail delivery fee, arguing it is costly and complex for retailers to administer, especially small businesses, and that the costs are ultimately passed on to consumers. The Minnesota Propane Association also supported repeal, saying the fee is burdensome for propane businesses, that only a small share of deliveries are actually subject to it, and that compliance costs can exceed the fee revenue collected. Fiscal staff noted that delivery fee revenue forecasts have fallen below earlier projections, and explained that the fee is imposed on sellers with several exemptions, including a $100 transaction threshold and exemptions for some sales such as bars, restaurants, nonprofits, and certain small businesses. Opposition came from local government groups. The League of Minnesota Cities said it supported the Transportation Advancement Account and its 2023 funding sources, including the delivery fee and motor vehicle parts sales tax, and warned that the bill would prematurely alter a funding structure that cities rely on for predictable transportation revenue. The Minnesota Association of Small Cities said small cities had long lacked dedicated transportation funding and wanted a stable, ongoing revenue stream, but were neutral on the exact source as long as it was reliable. Metro Cities echoed support for stable, predictable transportation funding for metro-area cities. The committee took testimony and discussion only; no final vote was recorded in the excerpt beyond the motion to refer the bill to the Tax Committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Committee on Fiscal Policy will now come to order. Michelle, please call the roll.
• It allows for the analysis of those who have completed training in early detection and have completed
• duties of the Florida Center for Behavioral Health Workforce by requiring a statewide workforce analysis
• Requiring a statewide workforce analysis every two years and creating strategies to recruit, train, and
• If you look in the bill analysis on page 7, you have to look at that graph and say this is not a sustainable

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You mentioned you would do policy analysis and sort of for people with developmental disabilities.
• We’ve done some pretty comprehensive research and analysis and...
• It's an analysis of a six-month implementation focused on two key policy provisions.
• It's an analysis of a six-month implementation focused on two key policy provisions.
• Okay, well, this analysis says that...

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Massachusetts Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities held its quarterly meeting on September 10, with roll call, approval of the June minutes as amended, and welcoming remarks for newly appointed commissioner Rachel Caprilyan and reappointed commissioners. Chair Denise Garlick outlined plans for a statewide community hearing series, beginning with a November 4 hybrid hearing at Needham Town Hall focused on the Boston/Metro West region, and described the creation of a nonvoting advisory council to broaden the commission’s expertise across health care, transportation, housing, education, employment, business, and local disability commissions. Commissioners discussed the nomination process, the need for geographic diversity, and the goal of having the council in place by the December quarterly meeting. The main presentation addressed proposed federal Medicaid and SNAP changes in H.R. 1, with Jennifer Bertrand of the Massachusetts Developmental Disabilities Council warning that the law could cut federal Medicaid spending by $1 trillion over 10 years, impose work requirements, require redeterminations every six months, restrict provider taxes, and reduce SNAP benefits. She said these changes could increase uninsurance, create administrative barriers, and threaten home- and community-based services, with a Massachusetts analysis projecting 141,000 to 203,000 MassHealth members could lose coverage over six months. Commissioners and attendees responded that the changes could harm people with disabilities, caregivers, and provider organizations, increase institutionalization risk, and intensify competition for limited state resources; several emphasized the need for disability groups and broader health care stakeholders to coordinate advocacy. Subcommittee reports highlighted recent and upcoming work. The Disability Employment Subcommittee reported on a June “Strength and Support” event, an August presentation by Run the Gamut, and an upcoming MAPC/Employment First workshop in Worcester, while the Long-Term Services and Supports and Health Equity Subcommittee discussed a presentation from the Lurie Institute for Policy Research on community living dashboards and disparities in Medicaid and LTSS. Commissioners also shared announcements about upcoming events, including the Paul Spooner Generational Leisure Summit, the Disability Policy Consortium’s John Winsky Memorial Award ceremony, the Massachusetts Health Council’s annual celebration, and a September 17 hearing on insurance coverage for hearing aids. The meeting ended with congratulations to commissioner Carl Richardson for an accessibility award and a motion to adjourn, which passed.

Transcript Highlights:

• They're asking for bar authority for next fiscal year.
• Okay, and the fiscal year, Mr. Chair—sorry, the fiscal year extends into the next administration?
• You authorized it for one fiscal year.
• fiscal year.
• and into next fiscal year, Mr.

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• > and to update fiscal year fiscal years and to update fiscal year fiscal years and such<00:10:22.320
• The change, as I mentioned, only becomes final when MMB, Senate Counsel, Research and Fiscal Analysis
• , and House Research and Fiscal Analysis all agree to the change.
• The change, as I mentioned, only becomes final when MMB, Senate Counsel, Research and Fiscal Analysis
• , and House Research and Fiscal Analysis all agree to the change.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Finance Committee met for its first 2025 meeting, with co-chairs Senator Marty and Senator Pratt opening the session and members and staff introducing themselves. No bills were heard; the meeting was focused on orientation and on reviewing the committee’s budget rules for the new biennium. Committee members and staff from both caucuses, Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB), and legislative fiscal offices were introduced before the presentation began. MMB fiscal staff Brian D. and committee fiscal staff explained that budget rules are a nonbinding agreement between MMB and House and Senate fiscal staff that guides how fiscal proposals are tracked and understood. They reviewed the history of the rules, noting that the current document reflects the most substantial update since the rules were first adopted in the early 2000s, and that the 2025 version was reorganized into eight sections after extensive interim work by House, Senate, and MMB staff. The presenters emphasized that the rules are updated annually, are intended to promote consistent fiscal tracking and transparent communication, and are used as guidance for budget bills rather than as law. The presentation highlighted several substantive rule areas: general tracking rules and comparison points for budget documents; appropriation drafting guidance; treatment of transfers, revenues, and inflation; planning estimates and “budget tails”; and rules for extending, canceling, or reappropriating existing appropriations. Staff also described new or revised provisions, including guidance on understanding current-law changes, using Department of Revenue estimates for tax revenue, and treating inflation in the forecast as a general pressure estimate rather than appropriated dollars. The committee was asked to review the updated rules, but no vote or formal action was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• The staff analysis on Page 5, maybe that's not it.
• So we do have it's mentioned in the bill analysis.
• And that was at the recommendation of FDLE, which they also included in their analysis of the bill.
• give them an opportune opportunity to correct the illegal activity in reading this from the staff analysis
• Actually, there is if you in the in the staff's analysis here, there is case law.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't have a fiscal note on it and I would like a roll call, please.
• on the fact that there's no fiscal note for the entire bill.
• Uh, I just want to hammer down on the fiscal note here.
• So that's my assumption under the fiscal note.
• Okay. this uh the fiscal note August.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The committee heard House File 3407, authored by Chair Pinto, which would restore Minnesota’s prior serial-number requirement for firearms after a recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision narrowed the existing law, while also creating a method to serialize firearms that do not already have serial numbers. Supporters said the bill is needed to close a loophole involving ghost guns and to aid investigations, background checks, and trafficking enforcement. Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, and former ATF official Mariana Mitchum testified in favor, citing increases in unserialized gun recoveries, the difficulty of tracing such weapons, and examples of crimes where serial numbers helped identify traffickers. Opponents argued the bill conflates different categories of firearms and could burden lawful gun owners. Mariah Day of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, Anna Ley of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Brian Gosh of the NRA said privately made firearms are distinct from illegally altered guns, warned about vague definitions and possible First Amendment issues, and said the bill could criminalize lawful conduct or create confusion for owners who modify firearms. They urged a no vote. Representative Bliss offered a DE1 amendment to replace the bill’s serialization approach with increased penalties for people who use guns in crimes. Chair Pinto and others opposed it, saying it would remove the bill’s public-safety benefits and likely create a fiscal impact. The committee took a roll call and rejected the DE1 amendment, 8-9. Afterward, members discussed the bill further, including questions about the difference between unserialized guns and guns with removed serial numbers and comments both supporting and criticizing the proposal.

Transcript Highlights:

• Similarly, removing our opposition based on the amendments reflected in the committee analysis.
• And then I noticed in the analysis, it stated that one of our issues is the fact of electrification.
• I believe it might be marked fiscal, so it might be going to a probes.
• Marked fiscal, so it might be going to a probes. This bill will probably change.
• Well, I would disagree with that analysis of what we're doing.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 14, which would direct state agencies to reduce single-use plastics and improve waste diversion at state facilities by updating integrated waste management plans, increasing reusable foodware use, reducing paper purchasing, and requiring better employee education and recycling/composting practices. Supporters from the California Compost Coalition, Republic Services, Waste Management, and others said the bill would help build composting and recycling markets and let the state lead by example. Several groups that had opposed earlier versions said they were now neutral after amendments, including the removal of a 90% requirement. The bill was moved out on a due pass as amended recommendation. The committee then took up SB 326 on wildfire mitigation. The bill would create a framework for Cal Fire to evaluate the risk-reduction benefits of fuels management and landscape resilience investments, and it would accelerate implementation of Zone Zero defensible-space standards, including grants for local enforcement and broader application to rental and sale properties and post-fire reconstruction. Support came from Stanford climate researcher Michael Mastrandrea and several local government, insurance, and climate groups. With no opposition, the bill passed as amended to Appropriations. Next, SB 34 on port emissions and the South Coast Air Quality Management District drew extensive testimony. The author said the bill was narrowed by committee amendments to preserve the ports’ ability to reduce emissions while preventing cargo throughput caps and addressing concerns about automation, local control, and the timeline for port clean-air planning. Supporters included ILWU, business groups, and port-related stakeholders, while the South Coast AQMD and many environmental and community organizations opposed it, arguing it would weaken public-health protections and set a bad precedent. After lengthy debate, the committee approved the bill on a due pass as amended vote to Transportation, with some members voting no and others abstaining. The committee also heard SB 279, which would expand composting options for farmers and small community composters by allowing limited on-farm composting after large biomass events and increasing the amount small operations may process and sell. Supporters said the bill would help address agricultural waste, expand composting capacity, and reduce landfill disposal. Commercial composting representatives opposed it, warning that the bill could create regulatory inequities, strand recent investments in permitted facilities, and allow too much unregulated food waste. Despite those concerns, the bill passed to Appropriations on a due pass vote. The transcript also briefly referenced SB 613 on upstream methane emissions data, described as having no opposition and intended to improve tracking of imported oil and gas emissions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Andrew Erikson with Senate Council Research and Fiscal Analysis.
• Chair, I'm Stephanie James, Senate Council from Senate Council Research and Scholarly Analysis.
• <00:02:07.520> analysis<00:02:08.239> I'm<00:02:08.360> the research and fiscal
• analysis I'm the research and fiscal analysis I'm the fiscal<00:02:08.840> analyst<00:02:09.160
• <00:18:27.440> 27<00:18:28.120> in in fiscal 26 and 610,000 in fiscal 27 in in fiscal

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Now to get into the point of what this topic is about is the cost analysis.
• And so when we went through this cost analysis, we're looking at fiscal year 2025 because that would
• Fiscal year 2026 is just wrapping up now, so we were looking at that point in time.
• Chairman Sickler: “That is the way that we did this analysis, yes.
• But at the time of this analysis, that’s what those rates were.

Summary: The committee reconvened at North Dakota State College of Science for a presentation from President Dr. Flanagan and college leaders about NDSCS’s mission, enrollment growth, workforce training, and facilities needs. Flanagan highlighted student success in national competitions, strong placement and retention, growing enrollment, and new or expanding programs in aviation maintenance, fire science, dental hygiene, community health worker training, surgical technology, HVAC/plumbing, and precision agriculture. He also emphasized the college’s partnerships with industry, including John Deere, Fargo Jet Center, Sanford, and Comdel Innovation, and said NDSCS plans to seek approval next session for a revenue bond to build a new dorm and to remodel the library into academic and allied health space. Allied health dean Deb Smith testified that her division is at capacity and needs a simulation center, more lab and classroom space, and expanded dental and OTA facilities to meet demand and accreditation needs. Committee members questioned Flanagan and staff about workforce shortages, especially faculty pay, and whether the college can staff additional growth. Flanagan said the biggest challenge is recruiting instructors because industry pays more, but noted some health care and adjunct hiring is possible because of schedule flexibility and benefits. He also discussed shifting resources away from lower-demand programs like power sports toward higher-demand areas such as automotive and aviation maintenance. Members also asked about the college’s identity as a technical institution, with Flanagan arguing North Dakota would benefit from a more defined tech-school system. The committee then received a University System presentation from Jamie Wilkie on the cost of delivering dual credit. Wilkie explained the methodology used to allocate direct and overhead costs across subsidized and unsubsidized dual credit, noting that dual credit and early entry account for about 5.9% of total credit hours and 2.7% of formula funding. The analysis showed subsidized dual credit tuition revenue of about $5.5 million and unsubsidized revenue of about $2.9 million, with some institutions showing margins and others losses depending on the model. Members discussed whether K-12 funding should also be reflected, how payments to high schools and teachers are structured, and whether tuition-free dual credit would require replacing both tuition revenue and the current dual credit scholarship. No votes were taken; the committee simply received the presentations and discussed the findings.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now to get into the point of where, what this topic is about, is the cost analysis.
• And so when we went through this cost analysis, we're looking at fiscal year 2025 because that would
• So that's another line you'll see when we get to the full-page analysis next.
• Chairman Sickler, that is the way that we did this analysis: yes.
• But at the time of this analysis, that's what those rates were.

Summary: The committee met at North Dakota State College of Science for a presentation from President Flanagan and campus leaders on the college’s mission, enrollment growth, workforce programs, facilities needs, and industry partnerships. Flanagan highlighted student success in national competitions, strong placement and retention, the college’s strategic plan, and new or expanding programs such as aviation maintenance, fire science, dental hygiene, community health worker, surgical technology, HVAC/plumbing, and precision agriculture. He also described the need for a new dorm and a remodel of the library into academic and allied health space, including a simulation center, to address capacity limits and support growth. Several committee members asked about program demand, faculty recruitment, pay competitiveness, and how the college shifts resources from lower-demand programs to high-demand ones. Industry partner Jim Albright of Comdell testified that the college has been essential to the local manufacturing workforce and that many employees and interns come from NDSCS. A major topic was dual credit. Flanagan said dual credit is important but financially challenging, noting that only a small share of dual credit students ultimately matriculate to NDSCS and that the college’s dual credit model is close to break-even. He explained that many dual credit credits are general education rather than CTE, and that the college pays instructors, supports high schools, and absorbs indirect costs. Williston State College President Bernal Herning added that his institution loses money on the front end but has shifted toward helping students complete associate degrees before high school graduation because many go directly to work after high school. Committee members questioned how dual credit is delivered, how instructors are qualified, and whether students are truly doing college-level work. The committee then received a University System presentation from Jamie Wilkie on the cost of delivering dual credit statewide. Wilkie explained the methodology used to allocate direct and overhead costs and said the analysis shows dual credit is not profitable at several institutions once tuition, instructor payments, and overhead are included. Members asked how much of the cost is borne by students, families, and the state, and whether K-12 funding should also be considered. Discussion also covered the difference between subsidized and unsubsidized dual credit, payments to high school teachers or schools, and the possibility of waiving tuition in the future. No votes were taken, and the committee mainly gathered information for the ongoing dual credit cost study.

Transcript Highlights:

• The concurrence analysis for AB 715 will serve as the background material for the informational hearing
• Was there analysis on housing this? under the office of – in the Department of Education?
• I saw two questions posed in the analysis regarding this question that I thought were valuable.
• Right now, the fiscal impact has not been identified through this bill and this analysis, but we would
• On this specific bill, I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to the analysis this is on page

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh we've allowed any fiscal year 27.
• starting fiscal year 2027 going forward through 2031.
• :28:16.880> year up to 328 328,000 starting fiscal year up to 328 328,000 starting fiscal year
• <00:29:37.200> impacts and we don't know the fiscal impacts and we don't know the fiscal impacts
• Um so if they if the fiscal year 29.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all