Executive Board

This webcast is a service of SDPB.

Good, useful, and full of wonder.

SDPB.

I now call the Executive Board to order. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please?

Deibert?

Here.

Kolbeck?

Here.

Mehlhaff? Here.

Otten? Here.

Pischke?

Here.

Aylward?

Here.

Gosch?

Here.

Healy?

Here.

Heermann?

Here.

Jamison?

Here.

Mulder?

Here.

Odenbach?

Here.

Larson?

Here.

Hansen? Here.

Karr?

Here.

Mr. Chair, you have a quorum?

We have a quorum. Thank you. All right. I'm just going to recap the agenda for this morning and we'll get into it. The subcommittee did meet for the Investment Council this morning. We met with the state officer as well as the board president and discussed compensation and some of the performance of the Investment Council. And we're going to start off this morning with the Investment Council. What we have today is to approve the compensation for our state officer. After that, we're going to talk about 2 of the summer studies, make some appointments, and then we're going to cover the issue memos that the LRC does. And I think we have 8 that were suggested by the LRC. We can walk through those briefly and pick a few of those. Before we get started, is there any other comments anybody like to make? Okay, and with that, I'd welcome. Do we have minutes? Is there a motion to approve the minutes, or did we do it in April?

Go ahead.

I make a motion to approve the March 30th minutes.

I got a motion by Representative Mulder and a second by Senator Kolbeck to approve the minutes from the March 30th, 2026 meeting. All in favor will say aye. Opposed, nay. Those minutes are approved.

Aye.

Thanks, everybody online.

Sorry.

Try to keep in mind the lag there. I know we do have a few online. And I know it's customary to try to raise your hand, and if you raise your hand and somebody hasn't called on you, you know, within a reasonable amount of time, please just speak up and let us know. And then also just a reminder to please have your microphone muted the rest of the time. So we're in Room 362. It feels good to be back in here. It just feels right for some of us. With that, we're going to get started. I want to welcome the Investment Council this morning. Again, we're just going to kind of go through a review, a few things about the performance, some of the things that are coming up here. We're going to be looking for an individual for the board, and then the compensation. So with that, I'll ask you to introduce yourselves and proceed. Thank you.

Hello. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, e-board, for hearing us today. I'm Steve Pietila from Yankton, South Dakota, Chair of the South Dakota Investment Council. This is my 5th year on the board and my final year. My term runs out on June 30th, and we'll talk about that just a little bit. With me today is Matt Clark, Chief Investment Officer. I'm going to turn it over to Matt. He's going to just briefly review what we went over with the subcommittee just 30 minutes ago and give us an overview of performance and the 529 plan.

Good morning. Again, Matt Clark, State Investment Officer. And we touched on the returns fiscal year to date through March 31st for the retirement system, about 6.3%. It was, you know, a little over 8% a month earlier, but the markets fell off a lot. We only dipped a little bit because of outperformance of the individual stocks we do hold during March, the month of March, and also due to being more conservatively positioned. We had less, less in equity exposure, particularly due to hedges against the stocks that we did hold. So, so we're running around 6.3%, similar to our fiscal— to our annual expected return for the retirement system to kind of, kind of stay on track with being able to pay all of our benefits. The trust funds, they are managed a little more conservatively, and they also don't use some of the same hedging instruments as the retirement system does. And so we had a little bit less exposed to the individual stock selection that we do for retirement system. And so they're working around 4.5% to a little over 5% through March. And then for the 529 scholarship program, each year we Have a reminder that the executive board picks two members of the scholarship selection committee. Way back many years ago, the council had a scholarship program, and that that was funded by the arrangement with the 529 college savings plan administrator. And then we we opted to get rid of that and and ask the executive board and the governor where they wanted that to go, and they they jointly determined. Dakota Corps Scholarship Program, and the amount this year is going to be about $800,000, and that's slipping a little bit every year as our program's losing market share compared to low-cost vendors like Vanguard that advertise a lot and have a lot of scale and cheap cost with their index funds. And so that's slipping a little bit each year, but it's still about $800,000, and we had last year renewed that contract. to continue for another 5 years and then can reevaluate at that time. And that was all I was planning for kind of the numbers update. Should we pause, Mr. Chairman, for questions?

That'd be great. Do we have any questions from the committee? Can you pull them up online? Is there anybody online? We got a hand up. Senator Larson.

I have a question.

Go ahead, Senator Larson.

Just as you're speaking— hi there. Yes, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Just wondering, as you are speaking and listing out the numbers, is there a PowerPoint that you're referring to, or am I supposed to be looking at some visual, or is there one available?

So, Senator Larson, on the e-board webpage on the LRC, there is a presentation, the Investment Council update, April 14th, 2026. It's about 15 pages. Trying to see here. 11.

Thank you. I just wasn't sure where to find what was being referred to in the meeting.

Okay.

All right.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Representative Heermann.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I'm understanding this correctly, the long-term expected return is around 5.65%, while the payouts plus inflation total about 6.5%. I'm just curious on that gap, how sustainable that is. Is that due to the downturn, or am I misinterpreting that?

Mr. Clark?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I may ask, I'm not sure if the question is regarding the trust fund exhibits on page 3 and 4, or if the question is regarding the retirement system.

Representative Heermann? Representative Heermann, did you catch the question for clarification?

Yes, and I'm looking at the attachment now. I'd written these notes the other day, so Let me go back and look where I was finding it. I'm thinking page 3 and 4.

So that's the trust funds.

Excellent.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes, excellent question on the trust funds. I'm looking at page 3, and for the healthcare trust, for example, our long-term expected mean return of 5.65% And, and we're, we're denoting that based upon the 4% distribution rule for that fund and our projected inflation number, that 5.65% means that we will not be keeping up with inflation if our numbers come through. And so we're going to have to outperform our benchmarks By by that you know point eight five percent on average over time to keep up with inflation, or the trust funds aren't quite going to keep up with inflation. So the implication is either we just accept that, hope that we do better on the returns, or the the payout formulas of four percent are reconsidered. And there are times when Let's say the markets fall a bunch or interest rates are higher, when we make more than the amount to pay the 4% and keep up with inflation. And for example, on this chart, same page, it shows that the fair value for the healthcare trust is $235 million. And we have added $99 million above the 4% distributions for that fund since they were started, you know, way back in like 2002 or so. Okay. And, and we've kept up with inflation and an extra $18.7 million for that fund. So we're ahead of inflation before because the markets were, you know, cheaper at other times, and we were able to get ahead of inflation then. But based on our projected returns from here, we're going to be giving some of that back and eroding some of that $18 million cushion. And then the L— Education enhancement trust fund, we're 340 million ahead of where we started on that difference, 40 million ahead of of inflation. So we've got some cushion there too. And if the markets do fall or interest rates go up, then our expected return from those levels will go up. And and depending on what happens to inflation, then hopefully at some point we can earn. You know, the distribution plus inflation or more, but it ebbs and flows depending on, you know, the markets. Markets are very high now, so the expected returns from here are muted. And if it stays that way, then yeah, we're going to have— we're going to struggle to keep up with inflation and pay the 4% every year. The 4% is probably too high if we're going to have tough times on an extended basis, but— But because they were put in place back when, you know, you had a lot higher interest rates and things like that. So I hope that addresses the question.

Representative Heermann, do you have a follow-up?

Yeah, follow-up please, Mr. Chair.

Go ahead.

So thank you for answering that question. That was very helpful. And then as far as, you know, if we hit challenging times, we may need to make an adjustment. What kind of timeline would we be looking at to need to make that decision? Is that, you know, estimating in the next 6 months, in the next year, or what's your comfort level?

Mr. Chair, I think it would be a— realistically, I think it'd be a several-year timeframe. You know, it was many years, even a couple decades to build up this cushion. And so it would be contemplated, you know, that there's going to be times when we do a little better and times when we do a little worse. And given the cushion that we have and the pain inflicted on the state budget of reducing, you know, those 4% distributions, it would probably be a number of years of falling short without the belief that, hey, there'll be good times to offset that. So it would probably be an extended period of time. And then We would probably have to go through for some of the trust funds. The distributions are in the Constitution, and for some of them, they they might be able to be adjusted by statute. And so, so I'm guessing it would be a several-year time frame because we know there's going to be decades when we do better than that and decades worse. Unfortunately, we've had the good decades already to give us some cushion. I I hope that helps. It it's It's been tried to be a keep steady as she goes type of an approach where we just stick to that 4%. And in all the years when we're doing a lot better than 4% plus inflation, and people would say, well, can't we just pay extra out of those trust funds? Then I would talk about the same stuff that there's going to be bad times. There's going to be times when we do a lot worse. We need this cushion to carry us through those times. Because we did see tough times right after the financial crisis for a year where there wasn't a distribution made at all. Because if we go below principal, if we fall below the original principal, there can't be a distribution. And so, so I think we're probably in good shape to just keep doing the same thing unless— because there is an automatic stabilizer. If we do go below principal in a market crash, there won't be a distribution at all. And I hope that helps.

Okay. Representative Heermann.

Thank you. No follow-up.

Any other questions? Representative Odenbach.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I'd like to just hear your comments on what I'll call your conservative investment philosophy. When I look, just do a web search, the overall S&P 500, if you were just in the market in general, 331.25 to 331.26. had a total return of 17.8%, and our managed here on the overhead says we were at 6.30%. So, you know, we're looking at almost a third of what just the overall S&P was at. So I guess I'd just like to hear a little discussion on that.

Mr.

Chair?

Yep, go ahead.

Yeah, could I clarify the exact timeframe you used? Was that June 30th through March 31st, so a 9-month period, or?

Well, what I was looking at is 3/31/25 to 3/31/26 is saying they had 17.8, and ours says there our estimated return through 3/31/26 was 6.30. I don't know if that's a— I assume that's a year over year as well.

Sorry, Mr. Chair. Yeah, that's a 9-month number that we're showing. So our fiscal year to date would always be June 30th. Uh, to now. Um, uh, the comparison, um, is very valid, you know, if we wanted to look at a year over year. Of course, our return would be higher too if we included, you know, the, the last June 30th year. But the S&P has done the best out of all the markets by far. Uh, our benchmark for stocks is global with a home country bias. So if we had 75% of our stock money in a global benchmark and 25% in the U.S. component of global, that's what we compare our stocks to. And if we're neutral on different markets, that's where we would be. So the S&P 500 isn't actually our benchmark because we are global. At times, the S&P will do better. It had done the best in the last several years, although, you know, recently it's been the worst-performing market in recent months as emerging markets have done better, the foreign markets have done better, and small cap as well. But over a multi-year period, the S&P is still the best by far.

Okay.

And— but we didn't— we didn't know that would be the case. We assumed there'll be times when the S&P will do best, but other times when emerging markets will do better, or foreign stock markets, or small cap. And so we have our benchmark, you know, that has a mix of all of those in it. And then, in hindsight, we can go back and see what did best. But we don't believe we can predict what will do best going forward. There's been a lot of conversation about American exceptionalism. You know, and how the largest U.S. companies have benefited from that the best, you know, the big tech companies, for example. And we believe they had become expensive and overvalued and had gotten into a bubble. And so we were more defensive about that and those holdings. Same thing was true in the late '90s. You know, we became defensive about the internet stocks, you know, at least a couple years early and missed a lot of the bubble on the going up. But then we sidestepped a lot of the pain on the way down. And in the end, the markets ended up such that we're— we were glad that we did what we did by missing out a lot of the upside, but missing downside too. Compared to just riding it up and down. And so, it depends on when we look. Are we going to look when the bubble gets bigger? Well, then we're going to miss out, and we're going to lag behind. And in fact, the only way to outperform in a period like that is to take more risk than everybody else in exposure to the bubble. And then, if it turns out to be a bubble and it goes down, Right. Unless we are fortunate to get out in the right time, then we're going to suffer more than everybody on the way down as well. We don't believe that we can predict the short-term timing. All we believe is that we can measure, is it a good value or not? And we know that the markets go way above a fair value, and they'll go way below a fair value at times. We don't— think we can predict the nature of the timing of the psychological shifts that fuel those swings around fair value. We're like land appraisers that appraise the value of a property based on the rental income that's going to come, or for an apartment building on the rental income. And we know that markets will sometimes go way above that, or way below that. And we try to play those swings in a sense by just like Warren Buffett would on trying to buy low, sell high. So if the market's selling below kind of our sense measurements of fair value, which are very cash flow based. So everything's cash flow based and the growth of the cash flows and proper discount rates that take into account the risk. So, so when, when stocks or real estate or anything is selling below its appraised fundamental long-term value, then we, we go overweight it. So we're not always conservative. We're only conservative when assets are overpriced in our view based on cash flow generating potential. When they're underpriced, we have more than benchmark exposure. We'll have more in stocks than others. Like in '09, we were at our maximum risk, you know, after Lehman went bankrupt and the markets were very cheap. We were at our maximum risk, which was equivalent in a simple stock-bond-cash world to being 85% stocks, 15% bonds and zero cash. And if the markets would go down a lot to get cheap again, we would do the same thing again. And so we're only going to be conservative versus others when the markets are above our estimates of fair value. When they're below our estimates of fair value, we'll go fully to our benchmark returns and then below. And if the U.S. stocks become cheaper, On a cash flow appraisal basis than small cap, if the U.S., like the S&P, becomes cheaper than small caps or cheaper than emerging markets adjusted for the risk and European or Japanese stocks, then we'll move into whatever is the cheapest. And so, if U.S. stocks have a long run and get— maybe they start cheap and they deserve some of it, but then if they overshoot and it goes too far, then we move away.

Right.

So not only will we have less in stocks if stocks as a whole are expensive, but if that's led by U.S. stocks being the most expensive at all, we'll also have within the stocks— we have an underweight to those large-cap U.S. stocks and we'll be overweighted emerging markets, uh, or value stocks as some would call it, kind of cheap, cheap, uh, non-exciting stocks. And so I, I hope that helps, or, or should I elaborate? I'll see if you want to direct any elaboration.

Okay. So we can do a follow-up. I can sense that you probably have one, Representative. Here's what I'll also just mention, not to cut any discussion down, but I just want to be mindful of time, too. We will be meeting— the Investment Subcommittee will be meeting June 16th, okay? And then we'll also be meeting August 26th. In June, our primary focus is to fill the opening on the board. August is when we do the full review of performance, and what I might suggest, even though in August we'll be doing that full review of performance, maybe we could have some more of the data and the charts comparing us to the S&P and some of the other indexes and benchmarks so that we can. I think your description is great, but it's a little abstract for some of us without seeing the charts and the numbers. The question is. I think that is not a new question. You know, what are we doing as far as performance and why are we not performing as high as some of these others? I think last year I asked the question, you know, do we have master carpenters building picnic tables, to illustrate my concern with that as well. So with that being said, we will prepare for more in-depth analysis in the subcommittee meeting in June. I'm going to try to tie up our conversation now. If you have a follow-up question, Representative Odenbach, at this time?

Well, the question—

it may be a question or it may be something, as you said, Mr. Chair, to talk about further at these meetings in June and August, but I think it would be a good discussion to just help us understand better your stock versus cash allocation in comparison maybe to other states and what kind of returns we're seeing there. At some point we are going to get the questions from state employees and from people who have a significant amount of their retirement invested in this. And I understand the need to be conservative when you're talking about pensions and things like that. We've all heard the horror stories of other states. But when you see just, hey, if we put $1 billion in the S&P and let it ride, we'd have made 17.3 and now we're making 6, you need to just make sure we as the policymakers understand Year to year, year to year, years go by. It's been 3 years, it's been 5 years, it's been 10 years where we've decided to have this conservative allocation. Is that the wisest way forward? Can we, as the policymakers, answer to those who are looking to us to say, are you doing your job to make sure we're getting the returns?

I think that's a good, good summary. And so let's prepare for a more in-depth conversation in June. And look at that to hopefully address some of those questions about the opportunity cost of our philosophy and some of the investments we've chosen versus maybe something less complicated like, you know, a solid performing index fund. Does that make sense?

Yeah, Mr. Chair, if I could—

Go ahead.

Yeah, we, you know, the valuation processes that we use internally, you know, for the state money is very detailed and complicated. But we have simplified versions that we use for some of the foundations that I volunteer to help that closely resemble the complicated work. And that's much easier to go through and perhaps would convey, you know, the understanding that I think you guys might be looking for. And so, you know, I'd be happy to review that at any time. You know, we put together monthly packets every month on on for those groups and annual presentations. And we have some charts from ours too that, that we could walk you through a little bit of like what an investment council member might see that might help you do that. I'd be happy to do that anytime over a Teams call or in person with any legislator as well. You know, might take a couple hours at least. I tried to do that with a couple people the other day and we only got through a third of it in a couple hours. But, but, but I can try to start off with what you're most interested in. So we're happy to do that at any time. We do have a lot of materials.

Okay.

I know online I have Senator Pischke would like to ask a question.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Obviously, this is something that we're going to follow up with in June, like you talked about. But just to follow up on the conversation a little bit, I do hold some of the concerns Representative Odenbach brought up as well. But if you look at historically, like Warren Buffett, for example, and Mr. Clark alluded to this, that he's holding a historically high liquidity position on his portfolio as well. And so, and I've heard comments from the Chair of Appropriations, Senator Otten, about how there is, you know, headwinds coming before us as well. So I think that there is going to be a pullback, and I appreciate Mr. Clark and his perspective as well. I think that something is coming here in the future, and so I don't disagree with his position. And so, but yeah, getting more numbers and charts in front of us so we can explain that to our voters would be good as well. So, but I'll refrain from questions for now and hold those till June. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Thank you. So I just want to wrap up this conversation and let all the members know you are welcome to sit in on the Investment Council subcommittee meeting, even if you're not on the subcommittee, and participate. If you have any other suggestions for Mr. Clark and some materials we'd like to see for June, please, please let me know. And let's, let's move forward to the Representative Odenbach.

I just would say to wrap it up, I thought you put it well. You said the opportunity costs of our philosophy. And I think if, if we do revisit this to maybe take a look at the last 5 years, for example, and say Okay, we were very conservative as we saw the run-up, but as Senator Pischke said, okay, maybe we're then better insulated if there's a downturn. We should look at that over the last 5 years to take and make sure we understand, well, what were the opportunity costs that were foregone because we decided to be as conservative as we were, as we look at these trends that we now try to predict in the future. So that was well said.

I appreciate that. I know we had that discussion last year, too, and I expressed this similar concern to say, we keep preparing and preparing for this recession, and the opportunity cost to that and to the returns is, at some point, the aggregate of that outweighs if we just absorbed whatever hit we would take if we were investing, you know, maybe a little less conservatively.

Okay.

From your perspective, I guess. All right. With that, we're going to move on. Let's talk about the— I guess I'll leave it to Mr. Pietila to move forward, but I want to get into the compensation piece here. Do you have anything else you want to hit before that?

No, thank you, Mr. Chair. There is some slides for your reference about the next council member, just some background that you might consider as you select the person to fill my term. And then we also included some background information on compensation methodology on pages 8 through 11 that we reviewed in more detail with the subcommittee. So you'll note on slide 7 that we made a recommendation to the executive board that the 2027 compensation be comprised of the 2026 base salary increased by state salary policy And continuation of the Investment Performance Incentive Plan. So that was what we brought to the subcommittee.

Okay, thank you. Any questions? Any questions online? Okay, so we're at the point where there was a recommendation made by the Investment Council Board regarding the compensation for our State Investment Officer, Matt Clark. We need to make a formal motion today and have a roll call vote. I'd entertain a motion at this time. Senator Mehlhaff?

Mr.

Chair, yes. I would move that the total compensation for the state investment officer for fiscal year 2027 be comprised of the fiscal year 2026 base salary increased by the state salary policy and continuation of the investment performance incentive plan with any earned incentive to be paid following completion of the audit.

Second.

Okay, I have a motion by Senator Melhoff, seconded by Senator Otten. Any other comments on that motion regarding the compensation plan?

Mr.

Chair, go ahead.

Yeah, I think it's a, it's a conservative recommendation that reflects the region we live in and the public service asked I think it's competitive for this region when you take all that into consideration.

Thank you. I'll just add a couple comments. I think we are very fortunate in having the state officer that we have and for such a long period of time. This compensation package has a base and plus the ability for incentive up to 200%. The average that we discussed has been about 80% of that incentive. And, you know, going back to our discussions about returns, the state officer could, I think, could be put, if he wanted, put his thumb on things a little harder so that performances maybe are higher to pursue a higher return so that his incentive compensation would be higher. But recognizing your Dedication to your philosophy, you have forgone that incentive because you do believe in that philosophy so strongly. We're— I'm not saying that we should all necessarily believe in it, but you do. And I mean, the proof is right here in your compensation. I don't know if that all made sense to everybody, but I just did want to acknowledge that. I think it did. that you are dedicated to this even when it costs you basically money and compensation. And I think you should be commended for your dedication to your philosophy. Any other comments? Seeing none, this is a roll call vote. Madam Secretary, will you call the roll, please? Deibert?

Aye.

Kolbeck?

Aye.

Mehlhaff?

Aye.

Otten?

Aye.

Elward?

No.

Gosch?

Aye.

Healy?

Aye.

Heermann?

Aye.

Jamison?

Aye.

Mulder?

Aye.

Odenbach?

No.

Aye.

No.

And Karr?

Aye.

Mr. Chair, you have 12 ayes and 3 nays.

The motion passes. Thank you, gentlemen. We'll be in touch, you know, regarding the position that needs to be filled, as well as maybe some information to be presented in June. Thank you and safe travels.

Thank you.

At this time, we're going to move to the Executive Board Summer Studies, the interim studies. We have 3 that we have chosen to do this year. They were all, I believe, bills that came through the legislative process. We're going to deal with 2 of those today, Senate Bill 15 and Senate Bill 89. The first one is Senate Bill 15, the Developmental Disabilities Service Delivery Committee. I've asked the speaker just to walk through what that committee has been tasked with and what they will be looking at and pursuing during the interim. Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Developmental Disabilities Service Delivery Committee was created as a result of Senate Bill 15. Section 1 sets out the scope Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to describe the scope of the committee's work.

The committee shall examine the Medicaid waiver programs administered by the Department of Human Services which provide home and community-based services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities for the purposes of: A, streamlining provider biennial review and accreditation requirements to reduce administrative burden, improve clarity and consistency, and support sustainable individual-centered service delivery; and B, Assessing roles and responsibilities to ensure that current practice policy and service delivery match system realities. Secondly, the committee shall hear testimony from the Department of Human Services on the operation of and changes to the waiver programs. Third, seek feedback from individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, their family members, community support providers, and case management organizations regarding services provided under the waiver programs. And finally, Consider proposed legislation or changes to the waiver programs to improve services and efficiency.

Thank you. Okay, so this in Section 2 of this bill, it does lay out the members, and it consists of 9. So we've got the chairs of Health and Human Services in the House and Senate. So that's Representative Mulder and Senator Jensen, the chairs of the Appropriations Committee. Representative Derby, Senator Otten, 2 members of the House appointed by the Speaker, 2 members of the Senate appointed by the President Pro Tem, and 1 member of the minority party appointed by the Executive Board. And then the chair and vice chair need to be appointed by the Executive Board as well. I have chosen to appoint Senator Nelson and myself to this committee. As my two appointees, Mr. Speaker, would you please let the committee know who you have chosen?

Yeah, the speaker is appointing Representatives Baxter and Van Diepen.

Okay, so there's eight of our members for this committee, and we have one that the executive board needs to appoint. And I'd open it up for some discussion or a nomination to appoint, a motion to appoint. Representative Mulder.

Mr.

Chair.

Okay.

Sorry.

Are you okay if I go online to—

Yeah, you're fine.

Representative Healy. Representative Healy, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to appoint Representative Nicole Uri Balk as the minority member of this committee.

Second.

Okay. I have a motion by Representative Healy. It was seconded by Representative Mulder.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. Nicole serves on the Education Committee. She's worked with individuals both in her professional career and in legislation in the past few years with disabilities and individualized education plans. I just think she would be a really helpful resource navigating these policy issues as our minority member on this committee. Thank you, Nicole.

Thank you. Any other comments? I'll just say that Representative Yuri Balk also was on the 2025 summer study that we had regarding developmental disability services and delivery that led us to this to make sure that we have some follow-up and continued conversations. And she was a valuable member of that committee as well. So I believe that this is just a voice vote. Is that correct? Okay. Seeing no other comments, the motion is to appoint Representative Yuri Balk to the Developmental Disability Service Delivery Summer Study. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

And all opposed, nay. The motion passes. All right. So with that, our next task regarding Senate Bill 15 would be to appoint the chair and vice chair. We would like to get that done today as well so that this committee can start planning their meetings and their summer. So any discussion? We will open it up for chair and vice chair. Of this committee. Okay, well, I guess do you have something you want to say, Mr. Speaker?

This is the one that you're on.

Yeah, I am on it. I put myself on it.

Well, I would motion to make you chair.

Okay.

Second.

Well, let me— I'm going to make a comment, or at least— is that all right? First, I will say, you know, I came here 10 years ago. I sat in this room and I didn't even really fully understand what was happening as far as service providers for the developmentally disabled. And as we went through this process that is state government, looking at these different departments and agencies, I always had that philosophy to look for How do we prioritize who should be the focus of our energy, our resources? And this is one that really rose to the top for me, and I've been really fully engaged for 8 years. I'm happy to assist in leadership to see this through. That's— that is why I put myself on the committee. I hope my wife doesn't find out.

And, uh, You like it.

I do.

So I do believe in this, and The Senate Bill 15 as well is something that I brought forward. So I'd be happy to lead it and see it through. And appreciate you making the motion. Any other comments? Do you want me to do these individually? We'll just do a voice vote for the chair. All in favor will say aye. Opposed, nay. Thank you, Representative Gosch. The motion does pass, though. We got to address Vice Chair. Is there any motion for Vice Chair?

Mr.

Chair, Representative Odenbach, I nominate Mulder. Representative Mulder.

Second.

A motion by Representative Odenbach, seconded by Senator Millhoff, to Nominate Representative Mulder. Comments?

I think he's engaged in this issue and I think he'll do a good job.

Any other comments? Seeing none, the appointment for vice chair is a voice vote. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

That was a ringing endorsement. The motion passes. Glad we didn't have to do a roll call. Okay, we're going to move on to Senate Bill 89, the Emergency Medical Services Funding Task Force. Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Emergency Medical Services Task Force was created as a result of Senate Bill 89. The task force is instructed to examine mechanisms to fund counties and municipalities Number 1, establish a framework for the state to provide funding to local municipalities for the provision of emergency medical services as an essential service. Number 2, examine policies for ambulance service payments, including reimbursement standards for out-of-network emergency medical services. Number 3, seek input from relevant stakeholders on the provision of emergency medical services as an essential service. Number 4, provide to the executive board no later than November 1st, 2026, a report containing findings and recommendations for the legislative proposals related to the funding of emergency medical services in the state. And number 5, review planned expenditures of the Rural Health Transformation Program and evaluate opportunities to incorporate the funds into emergency medical services funding strategies. Task force shall meet, shall meet no more than 5 times during the 2026 interim. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Thank you. And so in Section 2, It does also describe the makeup of the membership. It describes the chair of Health and Human Services for House and Senate, Representative Mulder, Senator Jensen, the chairs of Taxation Committee, Representative Elward and Senator Peterson, 4 members of the House, one of whom must be a member of the minority party appointed by the executive board, and 3 members of the Senate, one of whom must be a member of the minority party appointed by the executive board. If the chairs of a committee are unable to serve, then we would choose somebody from those respective committees. And I'll open it up for any comments from the chairs of Health and Human Services or Taxation. Representative Elward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just talking a little bit before this committee, I will not be able to do this committee justice. I would like to recommend Representative Hughes, who is the vice chair of taxation in the House. And I will add, I did reach out to Representative Hughes.

I haven't heard back.

I did notice on this sheet though, he did not put down that he would not be able to serve. But in the, you know, if he, if it happens that he cannot, I would have a recommendation after that as well. But I would like to go with him for now.

Okay. Is it all right if we just have some discussion and then kind of come back and maybe recap where we're at as far as members instead of taking and voting on who's right now at this time? All right. Representative Mulder, I know that you had a comment as the chair of Health House.

Yes. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I as well, considering my placement on SB 15, a full-time job, and everything else that goes along with being a South Dakota state legislator.

I—

and plus, uh, this issue of rural EMS is not one that I'm engaged in on a daily basis or weekly basis even, because I live in Sioux Falls. Um, so I too, I, I don't think I would do this committee justice, and I know we're looking at placing somebody off the Health Committee. I do believe Representative Fosnes has talked to the bill's prime sponsors. They've had a conversation, and I think he would be— he showed interest as well. Just his healthcare expertise in working in rural South Dakota in the northeast area would be a great recommendation as well to replace that position.

Appreciate the recommendation. We got online a few comments. Representative Healy, go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I was going to also suggest Representative Fosnes to replace Representative Aylward, just knowing what Representative Mulder just stated, that he's just very well aware of all of the issues that are happening in rural healthcare. Also, I think this is a pretty obvious statement to make, but I would like to see Representative Eric Emery on this board as the minority member. He obviously, as we all know, he represents tribal EMS and also runs the Rosebud Sioux Tribe Ambulance Service. He also— this is so cool— he was just appointed to the National Emergency Medical Services Advisory Council, and that advises the U.S. Department of Transportation on national EMS policy. And that role is federally appointed. It's highly competitive with members across the whole entire country. So just wanted to call that out. I would love to see him back on this committee since he's just so knowledgeable in this area.

Thank you. I see Senator Deibert, you have your hand up. Go ahead.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just, as we walk through this, I, I'm really, uh, happy to see FOSNAS and some of the other recommendations because they're in the areas that of most concern. We're heavily weighted currently on the membership in the Sioux Falls metro area, and I want to make certain that we get West River, the northwest of the state, and the south-central state part of the state where we have rural issues, we get some people from those districts on this board. And I just ask that we consider that as we move forward with our, with our choices. Thank you.

Thank you. I see Representative Heermann. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, are we just looking at membership at large for the Emergency Services Fund Task Force right now? Are we looking at taxation as well?

Um, right now it's a discussion, um, kind of overall, so if you'd like to discuss either You're welcome to.

Sure. I just wanted to put forward Representative Williams for House Taxation. She's a longtime legislator and very active and engaged. I think she would be a great participant, participant in that. Also, for the at-large members, looking at the EMS side of the House, also would be interested in Representative Hunt. She has a great understanding of remote rural area needs As well as Representative Pohl, who served on the committee last year and did a really great job. He's always engaged and an active participant.

Do you, Representative, do you know if any of those individuals would be willing to serve? None of those that you mentioned signed up. Okay, hold on. I'm gonna just ask Representative Heermann first. So you mentioned a couple of people. Do you know if they would be willing to serve?

I don't know. I thought that they would be great candidates, and I see now that they're not on the list.

But okay, Senator Kolbeck, uh, unless I'm seeing it wrong, emergency services, I think Cole did say he would.

Oh, then I missed it. I apologize. Yeah, but the other 2 on there. All right, Representative Mulder.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I'm, um, just pulling up an email that I received, and I think everyone in this room received from Senator Reid, who has been doing some pre-work as he was a prime sponsor of this bill, gauging interest of members. And he kind of did run down— well, he did run, not kind of, he ran down a summary here of some of the recommendations that he thought would— I believe he's had conversations and they thought he would— they would serve. I, I think in particular I'm looking at the House at Large members that he has there. That includes Representative Hunt and her contributions of what took place, and then Representative Kaul for some continuity there as well. But I would encourage you guys to go look at that email for further names that he has.

Okay.

Senator Milhoff, and then I'll go to Senator Pischke.

Mr. Chair, thank you. I would also note, in conjunction with the remarks from the previous speaker, that Representative Weems did reach out directly to express interest in the emergency board.

Okay, thank you for sharing that. Senator Pischke.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I probably did not officially put my name in the hat for anything that you guys have in front of you, but After thinking about this more, if you would like another person from the Senate, I'd be willing to serve on this. I have a pretty good connection to the EMS person in charge of EMS here in Del Rapids and just wanted to express I'd be willing to serve if, if you would like to put me in that position.

Okay, thank you. Senator Odden.

I see that I am. Yes, I would like to serve on this. We've been studying this in Lincoln County. I've been involved in this issue for some time and fairly familiar with it, but I am on the page of finding a solution this time. Enough. We've studied this and studied this, and we just need to find a remedy for it.

Okay.

So we've had some pretty good discussion based on the comments, and here was my thinking. I'm just going to touch on the Senate side, and then I'll let the Speaker or somebody else talk on the House side. On the Senate side, so we already have Senator Jensen as the chair of Health. We have Senator Peterson as the chair of Taxation. That's in the bill. And then we are able to appoint 3 members, one of which is the minority party. Senator Larson indicated that she'd be willing to serve, so that checks the box for our minority party. We have 2 other members, and I would suggest that they be Senator Otten and Senator Reid. Based on their experience and time and interest on this subject matter. I'd like to hear from any other senators on that recommendation. Senator Kolbeck.

That's exactly what I had written down in my notes too. The 2, Otten and Reid, volunteered. We've got Jensen and Peterson, and Larson is the obvious minority candidate. So I think that makes great sense.

Good mix, in my opinion, there. Senator Deibert, you have a comment?

Well, I don't see any representation from the rural western part of the state on the Senate side. Do we know that the 2 chairmen are interested? Have we spoken to them?

I have not reconfirmed with them since, you know, discussing the bill during session. So the— though I figured you'd probably bring this up, and I saw Senator Voigt, but we are limited to, to just 3 members total. I guess if, if Jensen or Peterson did not want to serve, we could see, uh, you know, consider Senator Voigt for that West River representation.

Well, I think, I think it kind of depends, if I may, Mr. Chairman, on the House membership. I just— there's a lot of rural areas that aren't, uh, represented on the Senate side, so I just want to make sure they're considered.

Thank you.

Understood. Okay, so there's some comments from the Senate side. I'm just going to kind of open it up for House discussion and let you guys, you know, help determine your membership.

Mr. Speaker, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Well, for starters, for the minority member, I think Representative Emery definitely makes the most sense. And I'd be supportive of that. You know, I like the idea of putting Representative Hughes on as the vice chair of taxation. It tries to keep it at least consistent with the call of Senate Bill 89, which called for the chair of tax. Doing the vice chair makes sense if Representative Aylward doesn't think that he's the best fit for that position. So I would support that. And then beyond that, you know, the names that stuck out to me are Fosnes, Hunt, and Weems. So that's kind of where I'm at. Others might disagree, and that's okay. But I'll just sort of throw those names out there for starters.

So that's a total of 5?

That's a total of 5. Yeah.

So it needs to be 4. Oh no, one of those would be filling the taxation requirement. So that does work.

Okay.

And fill the health requirement as well with Faustness.

So you need one more member?

Oh, we need one more member.

I would, I would throw Drew Peterson, who his area has been affected by this as well.

Okay. Any other comments from the House? Anybody online? Why don't you recap that, Mr. Speaker?

Yeah, so from the House it would be Representative Hughes, Representative Peterson, Representative Emery, Faustness, Hunt, and Weems.

Okay. No last chance for comments online. Well, I guess I'm going to look for a motion. And I think we can just list all of these members.

Okay.

That works.

You want to do that? Sure. So there's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Senate members.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, I would make a motion to appoint the following senators to the Emergency Services Funding Task Force: Senator Jensen, Senator Otten, Senator Reid, Senator Larson, and Senator Peterson. And then from the House of Representatives, Representative Hughes, Representative Peterson, Representative Emery, Representative Fosnes, Representative Hunt, and Representative Weems.

Okay, I have a motion by Representative Hansen, seconded by Representative Jamison. Further comments on the motion? Seeing none, this is a voice vote. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay.

The motion passes.

Okay. As far as chair and vice chair of that committee, it is not spelled out in the bill that the e-board selects those, so typically we leave it to the committee. If we're all comfortable with that, let the committee choose Thank you, Mr. Chair and Vice Chair.

Okay.

And we're going to talk about issue memos next. I'm going to ask Jacob Carlson from the Legislative Research Council to walk through the suggested issue memo ideas based on the different conversations, priorities that you saw from bill drafts, et cetera. Maybe you could just tell us how you came up with the list, first of all, and then just touch on them.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the E-Board. Jacob Karlson, Senior Research Analyst with the LRC. So there's essentially 2 big categories amongst these 8 issue memo topics. The first 3 were board— or were proposed summer studies. That members had put in at the end of session. At the last e-board meeting, the e-board decided to have these possibly considered as issue memos as opposed to summer studies. The last 5 were proposed by staff. And so it seemed all of these, to a certain extent, have roots in the— in some of the conversations that we were having over the course of session.

Yes.

With number one, dealing with the property insurance issues for school districts. 2, again, coming on the heels of the property tax conversation that we've been having and the local district— school district local effort analysis, how those levies are calculated, how various school districts, especially the school districts that do not receive state aid, collect revenues outside the funding formula that exceed the local need in, you know, as defined in state law. Number 3, from Senate Bill 215 on the secured digital ballot system pilot program. Number 4, down there talking about the taxes that are being paid by disability individuals with disabilities, seniors, low-income households, veterans. Other groups, and then also detailing the existing tax relief programs that are available to these vulnerable populations. Number 5, an overview of hyperscale data centers and the effects that these data centers are going to have on public utilities and other resources. Number 6, artificial intelligence use in government, how, you know, how artificial intelligence is currently being used in state government and local government, as well as any actions from other states that could be deemed appropriate for responsible implementation. Number 7, on expungement and the sealing of criminal records. And then number 8, on Missouri River water pipelines, more on the focus because there was a previous memo that dealt with the rights. This one is going to deal more with the permitting process issues that come from interaction with PUC, eminent domain, other things like the practical implementation of getting these pipes in the ground and functioning. So those are the 8 that were— have been proposed by both legislators and staff as worthy of possible research over the course of the summer. And I am available to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you for covering those. I'm going to open it up for some discussion. Senator Kolbeck.

Are any of those in the 8, do you as LRC staff see one of them as, or 2 of them, or 3 of them as something that you just couldn't tackle, or do all of these have an avenue to success?

In terms of issue memos, I think that I would say that I think 3 might not necessarily fit the concept of the issue memo. Very well for a couple reasons. One, I think if you look at what the memo or what the detail itself says, where it says the memo would address security technology equipment, statutory changes, and potential costs associated with establishing the pilot program, the only thing that we could really detail in the issue memo would be the statutory difficulties. And that would be— that's not necessarily something that I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And I think that's something that doesn't necessarily need to be dealt with in an issue memo. If there are members that think that this is something that is worth pursuing, that could be a research request ultimately, or even a bill request where they have staff go through and actually find these, work with the Secretary of State's office, work with auditors, work with the stakeholders to find the appropriate outlet to actually craft this pilot program. Because it seems a little counterintuitive to say that a pilot program needs to be detailed out in a memo when the whole purpose of the pilot program is to do the research itself. Other than that, I think that the e-board would need to dig into what it wants to look at with regards to number 2 and local effort analysis. Because the question would be, is it possible to separate out local effort analysis from the broader question of the state funding formula?

Yes.

All together, and if there's a need to look at the funding formula— and I, you know, I staff the House Education— both Education Committees, and that seems to be somewhat of a recurring complaint that the funding formula has some issues that could be relooked at. So is it possible— so that's something that the e-board should consider. Is it possible to have a coherent and concise look at local effort without dealing with the broader effects that come with the funding formula altogether. Other than that, I would think that the other 6 would be— I mean, they should be good research efforts on the part of staff.

Okay. Any other comments or questions? Representative Odenbach.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, when you poll the public, property tax I think property taxes has been the number one issue, and we dealt with it in part this last session. But I have long said, and I think many here would agree, until we get to the costs that school districts are causing, that's the root of the high property taxes. So one, the property insurance issue is something I've heard from, and I know many others have, and that is one of the big cost drivers. And number two as well, the local effort. I think we've talked about this over and over, this idea that we've got the same max levy statewide, but many places valuations skyrocketed, others were flat. And that was the big contributor to these huge disparities that we saw. So if we could get some more guidance on those to help us then in the coming years do better bills that directly address those 2 issues, I just think those are huge. And then to me, The last two honorable mentions would be this Missouri River water deal. That's that's never going away as we grow, and data centers affect on public utilities. And I think we can learn a lot just from looking at what other states' examples have been, but making sure we've got something right there for us on that issue—that's not going away either. But I do think one and two are are huge as far. As far as the cost drivers, that's the biggest issue for the public, which is these public schools and what it costs.

Okay, Senator Otten.

Well, I concur on 1 and 2. I think that that is something that we need to dig in. As far as the hyper data centers, I would stick artificial intelligence with that. I don't think you can do one without the other one.

I have a comment.

I just wanted to throw, um, out a little bit of insights on and support for number 4, the tax incidence for vulnerable populations. Um, I know that we have spent so much time talking about property tax relief, and like the good representative from Spearfish pointed out, it's a very, very big issue in our state, and we did a lot with it this last session. However, you know, in my district, 40% of people don't own property, so it's leaving a big percentage of the population out of the conversation. And I would like to know how over the long term we can think about everybody in the entire tax picture in addition to what we have been discussing this last session. So I just throw my support behind number 4.

Thank you. And I see Senator Deibert has a comment.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. On number 2, one thing that I think is very important is to understand the impact of current legislation and future legislation on those schools that don't receive state aid. I think with Senate Bill 245 this year that we May have done some unique things there to those districts. So I think 2 is very important. I would, I would say that number 8, maybe we're a little off course. We have a water board. We have permitted some of the western pipelines with future use permits. I don't see the value in that as it's written. Not saying that there isn't some possibility with that number 8, but as it's written, I don't support it.

Okay. Other comments? Senator Kolbeck.

Yes, just a question. What's a reasonable number and a workload expectation for LRC? 3, 4, 5, 6 of these? I'm— and I'll show my cards— I'm thinking 2.

I think this summer in discussing with the director, with the current load of studies that are being undertaken with statutory committees. We would think that, I mean, anywhere from like 4 or 5 would be doable on our end. So, we would be able to do that.

Go ahead. I'm sorry, Jon, did you want to wait? I just— I'd just been reading an article recently about how many ballot I'm going to throw my hat in the ring on number 3, issue memorandum evaluating implementation of secure voting systems. Make sure that we're— we had a lot of voting issues in state affairs. A lot of people with security mentioned that. So that might be a good one.

Okay. Other comments? Mr.

Speaker?

No.

Anybody else online? I'm just going to just briefly make a few comments about the issue memorandum and the process and the value. Some of these ideas were proposed as summer studies, but if you think about a summer study versus the issue memorandum, I really appreciate these, and we got some great white papers from the past. I remember the Big Mo. That totally blew me away that Anna Madsen wrote up. I thought that was fantastic. And there's objectivity to these. There's no agenda. These are put together to provide us with the data so that hopefully addressing relevant topics allows future legislators to help make decisions and guide them as we go through the policy process. A summer study, a lot of times, you know, we've got elected officials Everybody has a bias. You also have lobbying force and testimony, all driving an agenda. The issue memos have no real agenda other than the direction that we give to the researchers on what to provide us and look into. I see a lot of value on a couple of these topics. I'm going to agree with 1 and 2. I like— so those are the property insurance for school districts, school district local effort analysis. Yes. I do think we're not done talking about hyperscale data centers. Any further research on that is always helpful. So that way we're not just making things up on the go and relying on opinions, I guess, in the legislative process. And then the AI use in government is something that we've consistently looked at. I think we need to stay on top of it, understand, you know, what's— is there anything that any action needs to be taken? How is it being used? And then I think there's a couple others that could be could be looked at if you want more data on the tax incidence of vulnerable populations. We've also been dealing with property tax, looking at some of these groups because we have bills already and we've had some that have been been around for years regarding some tax relief for low income, for disability, for seniors. You know, maybe some further analysis and understanding the numbers. Would be helpful in either determining whether to pass or not pass future legislation to affect or impact those populations. So those are some of my thoughts, but 1, 2, 5, and 6 are probably my top 4 that I would throw out.

Representative Jamison, should we just maybe eliminate number 7 at least?

Nobody's really spoken on that one, and maybe we could just get— start working our list, whittling it down. Would that be helpful?

Okay.

Does anybody— is everybody okay with removing number 7? Senator Mehlhoff?

I'd be okay with removing number 7 and number 8.

Okay. Number 7 and number 8. Senator Deibert?

I would actually remove number 3 as well. I don't think this is the topic that we can respond to. I don't think this is the method to use. So I would, I would support getting rid of 3, 7, and 8.

3, 7, 8. Everybody okay with removing 3, 7, and 8? I feel like a bingo caller. The director is indicating that the remaining 5 The LRC would be able to do and handle this summer. So that would be the property insurance for school districts, the school district local effort analysis, tax incidence of vulnerable populations, hyperscale data centers, effects on public utilities and resources, artificial intelligence use in government. At this point, let's, let's take a motion for a voice vote, and then if there's any further comments, we can do that.

So moved.

Second. But there's 5 topics. Would anybody like to provide a motion? Representative Odenbach.

I move that we ask the LRC to issue memos on those 5 topics. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 was what I had circled on the total list.

Second. So I have a motion by Representative Odenbach, seconded by Senator Melhoff. Any comments on the motion? Further comments?

Representative should provide us some good data for making policy in the future, I hope.

Okay, any additional comments? Seeing none, this is a voice vote. All in favor will say aye.

Aye.

Opposed, nay. The motion passes. Okay. Let's— Mr. Director, why don't you just touch on the last interim summer study and give us an update on how we're going to proceed and when we'll be able to finalize the membership of that. Rachel, would you please?

Mr. Chair, Rachel Pearson, Chief of Legislative Operations. So because we have to get interest from outside individuals, what we're planning to do is we will have an application that we are going to post on or before May 1st. My plan is to keep that application open until June 1st, which will give us, you know, at least a month to, to get some interest. And then I will send all of that information on for any applicants to the executive board with enough time before their June Mr.

Director?

Mr. Chair, those positions too are non-member positions, so it will take a little bit more time to get some interest there.

We're hoping to make those— or finalize this committee though at our June meeting, correct? Any questions from the committee on this process? Any online? You just touch on our June meeting and the other items that we'll be Mr.

Chair, John McCullough, the Director of the Legislative Research Council. We have an appointment to the Uniform Law Commission set for the June meeting, potentially a technology subcommittee meeting. We have to set the travel fund allocation for this interim. Thank you. And the evaluations of the auditor general and the LRC director, and the investment counsel appointment as well.

Yep, we talked about that one a little bit. So any questions about that, or as we prepare for that next meeting and some of those appointments? Representative Elward. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I, I didn't know if it was appropriate to bring it up today with the investment counsel, or if it'd be one of the next couple meetings, but I had a constituent reach out to me. I think she reached out to some other representative centers as well, as far as the Investment Council goes and employees and the structure within it and some things that have gone on. So my question to you or anybody else is, would there be, you know, a subcommittee that would be more appropriate to talk about that at, or one of those other meetings? And again, it's revolving around employees within the Investment Council.

Okay.

Yeah. I think either the June or August meeting. Let me look at what we'll have time for. But I think it is something that we should— we can bring up. I'd rather do it during the subcommittee. We have a little more time and we can plan that accordingly.

Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments online? Can you pull up your folks online before we part? We have no further business in front of us today, and I just want to thank everybody for their time and the preparation for this meeting. I'm looking forward to the issue memos as well as some of these task forces getting going this summer. Any other comments before we leave? Senator Kolbeck.

Where are those white papers? That one that Anna Mattson wrote, those white papers, where are they stored, archived?

Mr. Chair, Senator Kolbeck, those are on our website. If you look under references, there's a tab for issue memos.

So in our— I'm in my LRC and I'm— I'll get with you on the side. We don't need to take people's time on that.

I'll talk to you after.

Sounds good. There's some really great white papers in there. Especially, we have a lot of candidates out there running for office, you know, and one of the things they always ask is, well, how do I prepare? What can I look at? I would look at some of those white papers. You know, you make it through the primary, those white papers are a great way to catch up on some of the policy discussions and analysis that are relevant for South Dakota lawmakers. So, okay. Seeing no other comments, I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. I have a motion by Representative Odenbach, seconded by Representative Jamison, to adjourn. And there'll be a voice vote. All in favor will say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. We are adjourned. Thank you very much.