The Senate Appropriations Human Resources subcommittee spent a major portion of its hearing reviewing the Department of Information Technology(NDIT) budget after the Armstrong administrationsubmitted an executive proposal that is roughly $10 million lower in ongoing funding than the prior Burgum proposal.

Subcommittee members, led by Chairman Deaver and Senator Davison, asked NDIT leaders to explain the delta and the practical implications for staffing and agency chargebacks. "One of the biggest changes... was a $15,000,000 funding for artificial intelligence strategy," Greg Hoffman, deputy chief information officer for the state, told the panel, and he noted that Armstrongremoved that line from the single-agency budget because similar policy bills now under consideration may determine where such funding should sit.

The committee heard that the $10 million net difference reflects several components: changes to FTE pool dollar amounts, salary-continuation (cost-to-continue) calculations, and removal of FTEs that had been in the earlier Burgum submission. "Some of this ongoing fundinghas to do with the way it looks to me. There's changes in the FTE pool dollar amounts," Hoffman said while walking committee members through the long-sheet budget comparison.

Why it matters: committee members pressed on the budgetary mechanics that affect other agencies. NDIT currently recovers a portion of its administrative and operating costs through fee chargebacks to client agencies; the Armstrong proposal retains a decision package that would convert some special-fund operating authorities to continuing appropriation authority while removing a proposed general-fund appropriation that Burgum had suggested for certain administrative costs.

Discussion and staff explanation: Corey Mach (chief information officer, NDIT) and staff clarified how administrative overhead is now collected and displayed on rate sheets as a published overhead uplift (6% was cited for the next biennium). Committee budget staff and OMB representatives explained that a "cost to continue salaries" line explicitly funds the follow-on cost of previously authorized salary increases and that base payroll changes reflect market-driven hiring costs and prior equity allotments.

Committee direction and follow-up: Members discussed commissioning a study of the chargeback model. "If we were able to implement a hold-harmless and do a direct funding for the bulk of the services and then have a chargeback option for a la carte or supplemental services, I think that would be the ideal scenario," Mach said when asked about funding model reform, but he warned that changes could not be implemented this session. Several senators asked staff to return with clarifications on matching numbers in the university system and the long sheet, and to identify which special funds and continuing appropriations would shift under any adopted changes.

Ending: The subcommittee did not vote on the budget and recessed with plans to reconvene for additional information and follow-up questions early next week.