Transcript Highlights:

• Because facility fees are charged separately from professional services, they are not always subject
• It also prohibits facility fees for outpatient diagnostic imaging services that are identified by MDH
• has banned facility fees for preventative care, Ohio has banned facility fees for telehealth services
• , and Texas has banned facility fees for drive-through vaccination and other health service locations
• No extra care or services were provided for this fee, and the clinic is not physically located within

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• This actually would be a service tax on a transaction fee.
• This actually would be a service tax on a transaction fee.
• This actually would be a service tax on a transaction fee.
• fee.
• I want to say it was $80,000 of service I want to say it was $80,000 of service fees<00:17:56.120

Bills: SB59, SB221

Keywords: military families, immunization, education, public health, school enrollment, Mobile County, judge of probate, compensation, salary, expense allowance, 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The board is entirely fee-supported and receives no general fund dollars to support its services.
• state in that we cannot claim Medicaid prescription drug rebate revenue on those drugs through our fee-for-service
• We would have to spend some additional money on the state side in our fee-for-service program to absorb
• We would have to spend some additional money on the state side in our fee-for-service program to absorb
• We would have to spend some additional money on the state side in our fee-for-service program to absorb

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Health and Human Services Committee met on January 28, 2025, to review Governor’s budget proposals for several health-related licensing boards. The chair said no formal action would be taken and noted that final budget language was not yet available. The committee began with an overview from Bridget Anderson of the health-related licensing boards, who explained that the boards are fee-funded, operate as independent executive agencies, and handle licensing, complaints, rulemaking, and disciplinary matters. She also noted that the Board of Dentistry’s budget includes the Administrative Services Unit and criminal background check program, which can make the budget graphs appear larger than the dentistry board’s own operations. The Board of Dentistry requested funding for a new administrative staff position, estimating about $100,000 in salary, insurance, and fringe costs, to replace support lost when an administrative position was reclassified. Anderson said the board handled more than 300 complaints last year, with cases becoming more complex, especially involving surgical and implant procedures and imaging. Members asked about dental Medicaid access, but Anderson said that issue would be better directed to DHS’s Medicaid oral health division. The Board of Behavioral Health and Therapy requested a full-time position due to rapid growth in the number of regulated professionals, from about 4,000 in 2014 to nearly 10,000 now, and also sought authority to set a fee for out-of-state applicants under the Counseling Compact, with a cap of up to $100 though the board expects to charge much less. The Board of Podiatric Medicine asked to raise its fee ceiling, saying fees had not been increased since 1999 and that the board now faces a structural deficit of about $40,000 per year and declining reserves. Several senators expressed concern about “not-to-exceed” fee authority, calling it too open-ended and suggesting the legislature should scrutinize specific fee needs rather than approve broad ceilings. Similar concerns were raised during the Board of Chiropractic Examiners presentation, where the board sought $100,000 in additional spending authority and a fee increase after 32 years without an adjustment; members questioned the proposed ceiling approach and asked for more historical information before deciding. The Board of Dietetics and Nutrition Practice also discussed fee-setting authority, with the executive director explaining that the board had previously lowered fees without clear authority and later faced audit questions; she requested funding for a vacant administrative position, saying applications and revenues have increased sharply and no fee increase would be needed. The final presentation began with the Board of Pharmacy, which said it serves more than 26,000 licensees and oversees the Prescription Monitoring Program and opioid product registration. The board requested an extension of previously appropriated general fund dollars through fiscal year 2027 to continue paying legal costs tied to the insulin safety net lawsuit, emphasizing that this was not a new funding request but an extension of existing authority. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• HCD's Codes and Standards Division is funded by fees for services.
• HCD's Codes and Standards Division is funded by fees for services.
• So again, the intent is for those fees... ...for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• neighborhood of 10 positions, that we didn't seek additional funding for because they're largely paid by fee-for-service
• To propose a fee that...

Summary: The subcommittee heard an extensive presentation on the administration’s housing reorganization proposal, which would centralize multifamily affordable housing finance under the new Housing Development and Finance Committee (HDFC) and align it with the Governor’s trailer bill language. Administration officials said the plan is intended to create a one-stop application and award process, reduce duplicative timelines and costs, and pair state subsidy with private activity bonds and federal tax credits more efficiently. They also described proposed changes to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program, including shifting a larger share of funding toward housing-related awards while preserving a portion for sustainable communities investments. The Legislative Analyst’s Office generally supported the streamlining concept but recommended changes to the proposed bond set-aside timing and urged flexibility for integrated applications and future reporting on demand. Senators, especially Senator Cabaldon, raised concerns that the proposal could weaken the original climate-and-transportation purpose of the sustainable communities program and that the reorganization would be undercut by the lack of new housing production funding in the budget. The item was held open without a vote. The committee then received a report from the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee on federal and state housing tax credits. Staff explained that the federal H.R. 1 change lowering the bond-financing threshold from 50% to 25% greatly expanded the number of projects able to use the 4% federal tax credit, allowing California to fund many more projects and units. They also described the state low-income housing tax credit as an important gap-filling tool for projects that still need additional subsidy, and noted existing set-asides for rural, homeless, at-risk, and extremely low-income projects. Members discussed rehabilitation as well as new construction, and the item was informational only. Finally, the Civil Rights Department reported on the effects of federal civil rights policy changes and on three programs facing expiration: California vs. Hate, the Community Conflict Resolution Unit, and Investigations and Conciliation Enhancement. Director Kevin Kish said federal cuts and policy shifts have reduced support for fair housing and other civil rights functions, while CRD’s caseload has grown from about 8,700 open matters a year ago to more than 12,000, with a six-month wait for interviews despite overtime triage efforts. Senators expressed strong support for continuing the programs and concern about the broader federal rollback of civil rights enforcement. The department said it is using overtime, intake triage, and outreach partnerships to manage the workload and direct Californians to appropriate state, local, and nonprofit resources.

Transcript Highlights:

• Alcohol and drug counselors provide counseling services to persons seeking services to address substance
• including the administrative Services including the administrative Services Unit<00:04:03.120>
• The board is entirely fee-supported and receives no general fund dollars to support its services.
• Like, what is the fee now and what is the fee that you want to raise it to?
• We hope to raise several fees. We're changing 14 of the fees.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• HCD's Codes and Standards Division is funded by fees for services.
• So, again, the intent is for those fees... ...for the fees, for those low-dollar fees.
• neighborhood of 10 positions that we didn't seek additional funding for because they're largely paid by fee-for-service
• To propose a fee that...
• Another example of a state agency raising fees and then rounding those fees up.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So we are requesting a fee increase to our public water supply fee.
• fees.
• fees.
• <00:24:38.159> allow<00:24:38.679> us fees right now our current fees allow us fees
• So the other 70% of the cost we would be paying, or the program would be paying through the fee-for-service

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The committee met for a Health and Finance Policy hearing, began with member and staff introductions, and noted that Representative Keeler was participating as a non-voting member. The chair outlined committee rules on decorum and then introduced the day’s first agency presentation from the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), with Commissioner Cunningham appearing to present the department’s budget priorities. Commissioner Cunningham described MDH’s broad public health role and emphasized that public health is underfunded relative to health care, with significant reliance on federal dollars. The department’s main budget request was for infectious disease prevention and response to offset anticipated federal funding losses. MDH also outlined several fee increases tied to public water systems, wells, licensing and certification, assisted living and health care facilities, HMO regulation, food/pools/lodging inspections, radioactive materials, X-ray equipment, and asbestos abatement. The commissioner said these changes were needed because costs, workload, and regulatory complexity have increased, while many fees have not been updated in years. MDH also presented budget-neutral proposals, including continuing the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Advisory Committee, converting the Maternal and Child Health Advisory Task Force into a standing advisory committee, restoring some local and tribal public health cannabis and substance misuse prevention grants, creating direct American Indian Health Special Emphasis Grants, reauthorizing the State Trauma Advisory Council, and extending firefighter PFAS biomonitoring work. The department also requested an operations adjustment for rising employee, insurance, fuel, utility, and legal costs, and referenced additional Clean Water Legacy Fund proposals. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided. Representative Bierman then offered supportive comments, praising MDH’s work and backing the funding and fee proposals, especially the restoration of local public health prevention grants.

Transcript Highlights:

• This bill is only addressing facility fees for specific services, and those services are listed in the
• So the bill is only addressing facility fees for specific services, and those services are listed in
• Facility fees allow hospitals to bill for the overhead to provide these services in outpatient settings
• for the services included in the bill, but that the health plan will be charged those fees.
• Of their services so that it would be built into the fee and it wouldn't be designated as a facility

Keywords: 996, all

Transcript Highlights:

• For the last several years, we've lost money on every service of process transaction because of the fee
• The Secretary mentioned earlier our fee inequality, specifically for service of process fees, and some
• It wouldn't require us to raise fees for service of process, so attorneys and litigants that are serving
• But right now, if we just increase service of process fees, it may not be $1.4 million.
• But right now, if we just increase service of process fees, it may not be $1.50 million.

Keywords: 994, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes from the prior meeting, and heard budget presentations from the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the State Auditor. The Secretary of State’s office described its FY27 budget, emphasizing efficiency gains from technology, election security work, and business services. It said it is operating with fewer staff than a decade ago, but rising costs and outdated statutory fees are creating deficits in service of process and other operations. The office asked the committee to consider either increasing fees or allowing it to retain a larger share of business-service revenue, and it also proposed creating an Office of Entrepreneurship to help small businesses navigate state government, grants, permits, and related services. Committee members questioned the Secretary of State’s office about fee increases, the current 50-50 split of certain revenues with general revenue, and whether the proposed entrepreneurship office would duplicate existing services. The office said it would complement, not replace, Commerce, SBDC, or grant programs, and would report metrics and policy recommendations to the legislature. The Attorney General then requested a one-time $2 million special revenue appropriation to hire additional lawyers and support staff, citing increased litigation, federal and state legal work, and the need to defend new laws. He also discussed embedded DMV lawyers handling DUI revocation hearings and said the arrangement costs the office just over $200,000. The State Auditor reported that his office is largely self-funded through special revenue and said he wants to reduce reliance on general revenue over time. He highlighted savings from renegotiated leases and an open government contract, discussed the need for more auditors in the Chief Inspector’s Division, and described fraud recovery and P-card operations. A major topic was delinquent land sales: the auditor said the office sold about 17,000 parcels last year and believes online bidding and better marketing could generate substantially more revenue, with the surplus potentially shared among counties, the state, and other programs. Members also asked about securities fee changes, fairness hearings, fire department audits, IT/cybersecurity, and how surplus proceeds from delinquent land sales should be handled. The committee adjourned after the presentations and questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• Local governments may charge impact fees earmarked for specific services, including law enforcement,
• An impact fee, instead, if it follows the dual rational nexus test, is a fee, and that fee is going to
• Their total impact fee for a single-family home for municipal services only, infrastructure only, is
• So $10,000 impact fee. What's a $10,000 impact fee?
• on fees on fees very often, and they have some of the highest fees in the state.

Summary: The Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee met for its first meeting of the 2026 session and took up impact fees, with an opening overview from Eric Poole of the Florida Association of Counties. Poole explained that impact fees are one-time charges on new development used only for new infrastructure capacity, not existing deficiencies or maintenance, and must satisfy the dual rational nexus test. He traced their history in Florida and described how comprehensive plans, concurrency, and later mobility fees relate to local infrastructure funding. He argued that impact fees are restricted, tied to capital improvements, and are one tool for paying for growth. Panelists representing counties, cities, builders, and community developers largely agreed that growth creates real infrastructure costs but differed on how those costs should be allocated. County and city representatives said impact fees are a necessary, targeted way to fund roads, water, sewer, fire, schools, and parks without spreading costs across all taxpayers. They pointed to long periods without fee updates, rising construction costs, and examples of large increases justified by studies. Builder and developer representatives argued that fees are often unpredictable, can be doubled or tripled, and contribute to housing affordability problems; they also said the system can be inconsistent across jurisdictions and may encourage sprawl. Several witnesses emphasized that fees must be transparent, proportional, and tied to actual benefits, and some suggested a statewide framework or mobility-fee model with more consistency and peer review. Members asked about how long local governments can hold fee revenue, whether fees can generate profit, what they can be spent on, and whether they can pay for police stations, fire stations, or other public safety facilities. Witnesses said the funds must be used for capital projects and cannot be used for salaries or unrelated purchases, and that refunds may be required if money is not spent within the local ordinance’s timeframe. The discussion also covered examples of local fee increases, the use of impact fees versus direct construction or “pipelining” of infrastructure, and concerns about level-of-service changes and extraordinary-circumstance increases. No votes were taken; the meeting ended after the panel discussion and member questions, with the chair noting the conversation would continue.

Transcript Highlights:

• The department collects many fees for services and products we serve to our citizens.
• So as I mentioned, our service fee timeline, we are currently in the process of finalizing our fees.
• So as I mentioned, our service fee timeline, we are currently in the process of finalizing our fees.
• I'm going to talk a little bit about the individual service fees.
• I'm going to talk a little bit about the individual service fees.

Summary: The Government Finance Committee met with new leadership, approved the December 11 minutes, and received a series of informational updates on the state’s finances and related policy issues. The Office of Management and Budget reported the general fund is tracking very close to forecast, with revenues about $2 million above forecast and an estimated ending balance of about $397 million, higher than previously expected. OMB also reviewed balances in major funds, including the budget stabilization fund, legacy fund, foundation aid stabilization fund, social services fund, and strategic investment and improvements fund, and answered questions about oil tax revenues and fund management. The Tax Department provided updates on taxable sales and purchases by county and industry, noting Cass County as the largest county by taxable sales and that retail trade remains the largest industry sector. Tax Commissioner Brian Kroshus also discussed the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act and its estimated effects on North Dakota income tax collections, explaining that the projected revenue impacts are measured against a 2025 baseline and that some provisions are temporary while others are permanent. He also reported that primary residence tax credit applications were running ahead of last year, with more than 154,000 received so far and an expectation of roughly 160,000-plus applications. The committee also heard fee-study presentations from the Department of Transportation and the Information Technology Department. DOT explained that driver’s license fees cover only about half of program costs and that the shortfall is subsidized by the highway fund, while also noting recent changes such as the blackout plate and motor vehicle excise tax distribution changes. NDIT described its internal service fund model, current billing structure, and possible future changes to simplify invoices and billing frequency. Legislative staff also updated the committee on office space needs in Bismarck-Mandan and on legislative branch space planning, and subcommittees reported progress on fixed-route transit funding and regional jail capacity, including a visit to the Burleigh-Morton detention facility and discussion of future prison bed needs. No formal votes or legislative actions beyond approving the minutes were taken, and the committee adjourned with its next meeting set for June 25.

Transcript Highlights:

• fee.
• of these services.
• That fee is approved.
• These fees is, are these consistent with what's being charged for other services across the state and
• for other services?

Summary: The Senate Committee on Revenue and Fiscal Affairs met on May 28, 2026, approved the May 19 minutes, and then considered three third-party convenience fee schedules for online payments. The first was for the Department of Agriculture and Forestry, presented by Rebecca Dupree with Louisiana Interactive; members confirmed the online payment option would be voluntary and approved the fee schedule without objection. The second was for the Department of Health’s Safe Drinking Water Program, presented by Karen Benjamin, and generated extended discussion about a $2.50 flat fee plus a 2.5% card-processing charge, especially whether that charge would violate recently passed Senate Bill 254 regarding debit card surcharges. Senators Mizell, Lambert, and Luneau questioned the structure, and department representatives said they believed the fee was not a surcharge and that ACH payments would avoid the percentage charge; the committee approved the fee schedule but urged the department to review it for compliance with SB 254. The third fee schedule was for the Louisiana Office of State Fire Marshal, presented by Lindsay Savoy and Garrett Lee, covering online payments for the conveyance program and the Fire Emergency Training Academy. Senators again raised concerns about the 2.5% card charge in light of SB 254, and the presenters said they intended to comply with the new law and would discuss the issue further. The committee approved this fee schedule as well, with a similar reminder to consider the bill’s impact going forward. The meeting then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• and the road fee and the transit fee, for must waive the sewer impact fees and the road fee and the
• Right now, we charge fees independently, so SIDLAC has their fees and TCAC has their fees, and we made
• Both programs are funded through application fees and then reservation fees.
• For me, services needed for youth, services I needed, were not available.
• For me, services needed for youth, services I needed were not available.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and tournament fees.
• fees, fee revenues generate by almost a million dollars.
• type, the highest collection rate is going to be the community service supervision fee, which is about
• is a larger fee.
• Number eight is the community service supervision fee. And number nine is city transfer cases.

Summary: The Judiciary Interim Committee met to begin its study of charitable gaming and the ownership of alcoholic beverage establishments by licensed charitable gaming organizations, a study directed by Senate Bill 2334. Legislative Council gave an overview of the constitutional and statutory framework for charitable gaming, site authorizations, rent limits, proceeds, and recent legislative changes. The Attorney General’s Gaming Division then clarified the financial flow of gaming, explaining that in fiscal year 2025 North Dakota had about $2.5 billion in gross gaming proceeds, with roughly 88-90% paid back in prizes and about $256 million available to organizations after taxes; most of that activity came from electronic pull tabs. Members asked for more detail on winnings, replays, rent, and the breakdown of manufacturer/distributor revenues, and the AG’s office agreed to provide supplemental information. The committee also heard from the League of Cities and the Association of Counties about local site authorization. Cities said they have a limited role in approving gaming sites, can adopt policies after public hearing, may charge up to $100, and can set certain conditions, including local nexus requirements, but cannot require donations or force a specific charity or site. The League said it had worked with stakeholders on a model policy to provide more consistency, though members raised concerns that local requirements could become too restrictive for charities serving broader areas. Counties said the issue is mostly a city matter, with little county involvement beyond minimal site fees and general site approval. The North Dakota Gaming Alliance testified in support of the study and provided IRS-related material suggesting charities may use asset diversification, while emphasizing it had not taken a position on whether charities should own bars. Members questioned whether bar ownership is being used for site stability or to channel charitable gaming dollars, and whether city policies might disadvantage charities with broader missions. The committee also discussed the relationship between gaming organizations, manufacturers, and distributors, including restrictions on incentives and interference, and asked for more information on those entities and their ownership. Later in the meeting, the Racing Commission gave its regular update on live racing, pari-mutuel wagering, ADW providers, purse and promotion funds, a new TRPB contract, and concerns about cease-and-desist actions from other states. Finally, the State Hospital superintendent briefly reported on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s support services, including the SORT team, training, and security assistance for the hospital campus.

Transcript Highlights:

• are seeing higher expenditures, which are related to higher caseloads, higher costs in managed care, fee-for-service
• provided by our mental health staff, aligning them with reimbursable fee schedule services to optimize
• The ability to expand the type of practitioners that can provide services that are billable in the fee
• Because the fee schedule has not provided the reimbursement for services as we anticipated, our county
• Yet to integrate waiver services into managed care nor to determine which services should remain in fee-for-service

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Providers may offer certain services that do require a fee, such as expedited processing. delivery fees
• Charge no origination fees, late fees, or interest.
• When a person accesses this service, signs up, and gets charged, is this a membership fee?
• If users opt for one of the companies that offers a subscription service, the fee is actually paid for
• without imposing mandatory fees. is providing a service.

Bills: HB1453, HB1718, HB2043, HB2207, HB2798

Keywords: local governments, anticipation notes, certificates of obligation, public works, flood control, financial management, local government, municipal financing, private activity bonds, closing definition, real estate finance, bond issuance, government regulation, bond election, general obligation bonds, GO bonds, political subdivision, city bonds, county bonds, school district bonds

Transcript Highlights:

• higher expenditures, and these are really related to higher caseloads, higher cost in managed care, fee-for-service
• the Department of Health Care Services to provide a brief overview of the fee schedule and any relevant
• provided by our mental health staff, aligning them with reimbursable fee schedule services to optimize
• Because the fee schedule has not provided the reimbursement for services as we anticipated, our county
• which services should remain in fee-for-service.

Summary: The committee heard a budget oversight hearing on the Department of Health Care Services, focusing first on the overall Medi-Cal budget and a March General Fund loan to cover a current-year shortfall. DHCS said the 2025-26 budget proposal totals $193.4 billion, with Medi-Cal projected at $188.1 billion total funds and $42.1 billion General Fund, driven by higher enrollment, pharmacy costs, managed care growth, and costs tied to eligibility expansions and the COVID-era redetermination unwinding. The department said the $3.44 billion loan was needed to manage cash flow and ensure timely payments to providers and plans, while the LAO noted Medi-Cal’s cash-basis budgeting creates volatility and that more detailed estimates would come with the May Revision. Members discussed federal Medicaid threats, the need for transparency on cost drivers, and the impact of pharmacy spending, long-term care, and immigration-related coverage expansions. The second major topic was family health programs, including California Children’s Services, the continuous coverage unwinding, and opioid settlement fund spending. DHCS described CCS funding methodology changes, ongoing county stakeholder work, and a delayed rollout of CCS monitoring and oversight until July 1, 2025, while county representatives and advocates argued the program is underfunded and asked for more technical assistance and a delay in implementation. On the unwinding, the department explained that federal redetermination flexibilities helped maintain coverage after the pandemic, but the Governor’s budget proposes ending them at the end of June 2025; advocates urged making the flexibilities permanent to avoid coverage losses. For opioid settlement funds, DHCS and Finance said the budget increases funding for naloxone distribution while reducing other harm-reduction spending based on updated settlement revenues, prompting criticism from members and public commenters who argued the change would weaken effective harm-reduction programs. The hearing also included an update on Proposition 35 implementation. DHCS said the voter-approved measure continuously appropriates MCO tax revenues beginning in 2025, with up to $4.6 billion annually available for specified Medi-Cal and provider investments in 2025 and 2026, but implementation depends on consultation with the required stakeholder advisory committee. The department and LAO noted uncertainty about future federal rules affecting the MCO tax after 2026. Public testimony largely supported maintaining Medi-Cal expansions, protecting immigrant coverage, preserving harm-reduction funding, and increasing support for community health workers, pediatric dental care, and CCS county administration. No votes were taken during the portion of the hearing provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• fee.
• of these services.
• That fee is approved.
• These fees is, are these consistent with what's being charged for other services across the state and
• for other services?

Keywords: 974, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Yeah, we would likely sell a service fee more than the license, but that is possible to do some sort
• We do background checks, and so we do collect a fee on those types of services.
• They provide a lot of laboratory services, and we have several fees over there.
• We have ambulance service license fees and EMS training institution fees.
• that we will have in addition to the fee-for-services.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• supervision fees.
• supervision fees.
• defense services.
• Should not charge an application fee for public defense services, nor should persons who qualify for
• public defense services be required to contribute or reimburse defense services.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to review fiscal aspects of House Bills 1417 and 1425, both part of a broader criminal justice reentry package. HB 1417 would eliminate the $35 public defender application fee and end court-ordered reimbursement of indigent defense costs, while also removing the $55 monthly community supervision fee. Testimony from the Commission on Legal Counsel for Indigents and the Department of Corrections said the bill would replace lost revenue with general fund appropriations of about $310,000 for indigent defense and $1.5 million for supervision fees, and that the fees are rarely collected and can hinder reentry. Representative Clemene said the bill is intended to reduce barriers to successful community reintegration and improve data and supervision practices. HB 1425 would create and fund front-end diversion, deflection, and pretrial services programs. Supporters described it as allowing prosecutors and local jurisdictions to divert appropriate low-level offenders from prosecution, establish deflection programs for people with behavioral health needs, and expand pretrial services. The bill includes a pilot program in three counties, a $1 million appropriation to DOCR for one FTE and contracts with local providers, $750,000 to DHS for treatment services, and $55,000 for a study of pretrial services cost savings. Committee members asked several questions about how the pilot counties would be chosen, how the consultant study would be procured, and what services the DHS funds would cover. The committee also heard House Bill 1603, which would provide a $500,000 matching grant for Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act compliance, with $100,000 available to each of North Dakota’s five tribes if matched. Sponsor testimony said the funds would support a Historical Society NAGPRA compliance committee and help catalog and repatriate human remains and cultural items in coordination with tribes. After questions about the federal mandate and the difficulty of identifying artifacts, the committee voted 4-0 to give HB 1603 a do-pass recommendation, with Senator Meyer assigned to carry it forward.