Subcommittee amends HB1448 to create statewide advanced-technology review program and forwards bill

At a subcommittee meeting on House Bills 1448 and 1265, members voted to amend House Bill 1448 to replace a standalone grant with an "advanced technology review program" that would evaluate applications for AI and other advanced-technology projects and forward funding recommendations to existing state programs.

The amendment (25.0883 0.01001) rewrites the bill to create a technical review committee rather than a new grant program, changes committee membership, removes a $135-per-day compensation provision while retaining travel reimbursements, and adds post-award monitoring requirements for projects that receive funding after the committee's recommendation. Chairman Bosch said the change reflects committee discussions about "maybe the possibility of combining the bills" and steering applicants toward existing programs rather than creating redundancy.

Why it matters: The amendment aims to route early-stage and commercialization-stage advanced-technology projects into the state programs best suited to them'from entry-level assistance up to commercial financing and state entrepreneurship programs. Supporters said the review committee would add technical scrutiny and a pathway to existing funding without establishing a separate grant stream.

Key provisions and discussion points

- Committee role and membership: The amendment defines the executive director of the Dakota Digital Academy (DDA) as a member or designee and reduces private-sector appointees from three to one while adding one legislator from each chamber appointed by majority leaders; the committee later agreed to allow two additional at-large members to be added by committee appointment to provide flexibility. Members discussed augmenting private-sector representation and whether minority-party appointment should be included; a motion to add a minority-leader appointee failed for lack of a second.

- Scope and limits: The committee would review applications for technical merit and feasibility and then forward recommendations for funding to the appropriate state agency review board, committee, or other entities administering state-sponsored programs. The amendment specifies that recommendations may not be provided if a proposed project requests capital building investments.

- Post-award monitoring: The amendment requires post-award monitoring to determine whether a project contributed to development of advanced technology, aided commercialization, led to patents or intellectual property, and positively affected the state workforce.

- Compensation and administration: The amendment removes a $135-per-day compensation provision for committee members but retains travel expense reimbursement. Members discussed avoiding creation of overlapping boards and commissions in line with the governor's directive to reduce redundancy.

Statements from participants

Chairman Bosch opened the discussion describing committee deliberations and the intent to "steer" applicants to existing programs rather than start a new grant stream. Representative Hansen, who moved the amendment, said the change "reflects our discussion" and that the review program would help capture opportunities in emerging technologies because it would "specialize in the emerging technologies and really help us capture the huge opportunity that that is in front of us." Representative Lausser urged keeping expertise on the committee and questioned replacing private-sector experts with legislators, saying the pool of legislators with advanced-technology experience is small.

Jerry Rostad, vice chancellor for strategy for the North Dakota University System, described the Dakota Digital Academy's role and funding, saying, "Todd Pringle is his name. He works for the DDA on a part time basis. He's also an engineer at Deere and Company. He also is an entrepreneur and he also does part time adjunct work for NDSU." Rostad said the DDA has been budgeted $450,000 and has aimed to coordinate technology work across the university system.

Votes and next steps

- The committee adopted amendment 25.0883 0.01001 to House Bill 1448 (motion by Representative Hansen; second by Representative Naindi) on a recorded roll call.

- The committee recommended a due pass on House Bill 1448 as amended (motion by Representative Nathie; second noted). On the roll call for the due-pass recommendation the recorded votes were: Chairman Bosch 'yes'; Representative Nathie 'yes'; Representative Lausser 'no'; Representative Steven 'yes'; Representative Hansen 'yes'. The committee closed the subcommittee and indicated the amended bill will proceed in the legislative process.

Context and outstanding questions

Committee members debated how the review committee's recommendation will be communicated to the receiving agency or program; several members suggested the committee could issue a letter or email confirming a favorable review and leave formal application and approval to the administering program. Members also discussed whether the committee's membership list was final and agreed to retain flexibility to add at-large experts if needed. A suggested amendment to require a minority-leader appointee did not receive a second and thus was not adopted.

The subcommittee briefly referenced a second bill (House Bill 1265) and said some language from that measure could be folded into higher-education budgeting discussions later; no formal action on HB1265 was recorded in the transcript.

The subcommittee adjourned after recommending a due pass on House Bill 1448 as amended.