[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6357670,"mediaKeyId","2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac","parentId",2213820,"title","Committee backs narrow exemption so township supervisors can inspect roads without triggering open‑meetings law","audioSeconds",595,"startMs",162000,"endMs",757000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac&start=162&end=757","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac/thumbnail_162000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6357670/North-Dakota/Committee-backs-narrow-exemption-so-township-supervisors-can-inspect-roads-without-triggering-openmeetings-law","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357670-1ad5fcd194bd3379b4e2af7d4aaee084/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162887&Signature=GdtedMJKx3hmFAk9C8XOr4K8kaF302d-ot-7KaFloLs2Mpt~bzAgTzsUVE~c2aPhkQ1hREMRAXLJO0LkaO-78DjKwA8Owm3KTobTCluzTMy-bjd2M6RowbqRkDwqydFZhDw6kG~qGGXFLiBw7CRvUrcxl5pcL3mPuzMO7lPEPZSAijwtXUafkrFx~y9hq7d-RCXgkJz-zmHyF2V7ryI1HqYIT8-tOrD5i70bVAyGcBwtXK~Cd77eGwU2uqSp6VziuV3eb4pj~6lO1j-eVI0hKm-di6F0KrJbRk2OJ5mwGIyjdVY-VuBZIX20wvCaa7KGk5p5G2C2az-98xc4c-fXXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Political Subdivisions, ND","date","2025-01-31T00:00:00Z","article","House Political Subdivisions Committee members recommended approval Tuesday of House Bill 1374, a bill that would create a narrow exemption in the state’s open‑meetings law for township supervisors conducting on‑site inspections of township roads and drainage.

The measure, introduced to the committee by Representative Plameen, would allow two or more township supervisors to gather at a site to inspect washed‑out culverts, ditches, gravel needs or other road maintenance issues without triggering the full open‑meeting notice requirements — so long as the gathering is limited to performing the inspection and no other township business is conducted. The bill requires that the township make a good‑faith effort to notify any news organization that has requested notice of such on‑site inspections.

Supporters told the committee the change mirrors a Minnesota statute and addresses a practical problem for small townships that typically lack staff. \"It is very rare for townships to have any staff,\" Larry Severson, executive director of the North Dakota Township Officers Association, said during testimony. He said township supervisors commonly ride together in a pickup each spring to survey roads and catalogue gravel and repair needs, and the current interpretation of the open‑meetings law can expose them to complaints for doing that routine work.

The committee considered and approved an amendment that struck a reference to \"staff of the township\" on line 12 of the bill; supporters said removing that language prevents an unintended broadening of the exemption while preserving the clause that the board may act \"as the staff of the township\" elsewhere in the bill. The amendment was seconded by Representative Jonas and passed on a recorded voice vote: 12 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, not voting.

After the amendment passed, the committee voted to recommend a do‑pass for House Bill 1374 as amended. The do‑pass recommendation carried 12 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, not voting. Representative Figley said he would carry the bill forward.

The bill’s supporters and the sponsor emphasized the limits built into the measure: the on‑site inspection exemption applies only to doing the inspection itself and does not permit supervisors to conduct other township business during the inspection, and the bill preserves a notice requirement to any news organization that has filed a written request for such notice.

Votes at a glance: amendment to strike \"staff\" (line 12) — passed 12 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent; House Bill 1374 as amended — recommended do‑pass, 12 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Political Subdivisions Jan 31, 2025\t","oneSentenceSummary","House Political Subdivisions Committee members recommended approval Tuesday of House Bill 1374, a bill that would create a narrow exemption in the state’s open‑meetings law for township supervisors conducting on‑site inspections of township roads and drainage.","taxTitle","Political Subdivisions, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28896,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357651,"Committee issues do‑not‑pass on House Bill 1434; sponsor to carry bill from the floor",126,7626000,7752000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac&start=7626&end=7752","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac/thumbnail_7626000.jpg","/articles/6357651/North-Dakota/Committee-issues-donotpass-on-House-Bill-1434-sponsor-to-carry-bill-from-the-floor","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357651-eeb6d728184caeb9dba92458c85b104b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162888&Signature=QB0DrNu0vtNx5JEninBJ8sQfOhuR7Z3x--CWmFAtJBBLUymGuK1SktWFgw9BbyJ~qwAQNcxfrOf-EirCDlJQzwh5UgSAHUcyq4i5c2u~mu1e7zkes~y7fV-eWci3j6o7kGZMy64NX-y6TjqJ9j3udMKiWlqRuNojqpS1rfCD7XbknSjxLLh1ZQbgh1JSvOe1NgVRoshfc-wd9uNPWBOVkuttkX5ApkfQb3lgsEAUCBwJbcRb8~VL9M6YRVMosUBG89b4yRVDkiPmXNcy0fKjt5bl7lWyX2iIoIAWbVxWg3MqdpNhzwhmjLW0HomKh~u6VDS5FCvesZ0LST4PZ3Lj2w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Political Subdivisions Committee voted to recommend a do‑not‑pass on House Bill 1434.

Representative Tholman moved the committee to give HB 1434 a do‑not‑pass recommendation; Representative Polinski seconded. Committee members discussed that several provisions in HB 1434 are being addressed in other, larger rulemaking or administrative bills and that the sponsor planned to work with Representative Toman to fold selected provisions into other legislation. The committee approved the do‑not‑pass recommendation 12 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, not voting. Representative Toman agreed to carry the bill from the floor.","The committee voted 12–0, 1 absent, to recommend a do‑not‑pass on House Bill 1434. The sponsor agreed to carry the measure from the floor; committee discussion noted overlapping policy work in other pending bills.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357656,"Committee weighs new jail fund versus existing infrastructure loan fund; Bank of North Dakota briefs members on capacity and limits",708,5930000,6638000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac&start=5930&end=6638","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac/thumbnail_5930000.jpg","/articles/6357656/North-Dakota/Committee-weighs-new-jail-fund-versus-existing-infrastructure-loan-fund-Bank-of-North-Dakota-briefs-members-on-capacity-and-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357656-402285973bbcf255d74ebc75a7cac0ea/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162887&Signature=YtM1FM53c48AoPhU5n2W8r0ITXYLpARXMXJtfWlJD51x3cAYWGoCPOXyLgXXoCYgKiHUsP0D-QlvJB9vedk3H~vqhRbOEOok1wOFCY3V6KzJv5LZl~jXsuXEYce7vfZFvxlJ5~AVXB3v53YoDki3qj--UzDRlPxIBiOiY1oSkuSQ2jAFEdl048fauCvcv8dXeNMHFNv~f5FS1XKHPUXwXC6W~66J~RCfXo12ezsIup6W8faCHyHxpkVR2nSAANBPP5lMf831Gdn0aGrWre5QhKmCHlvrm0BYYKwF7eEFkqrxdGM01-aUi1p9wLzQsKDJk2B-0evJOzwjZ4ML3PaanA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Committee members spent an extended portion of the hearing evaluating proposals to fund jail construction and renovation, hearing from the Bank of North Dakota about existing borrowing options and limits.

Kiley Merkel, a business banker with the Bank of North Dakota who works with legislatively directed loan programs, told the committee that political subdivisions can already borrow from the state infrastructure revolving loan fund for essential buildings and infrastructure; a jail generally qualifies as an essential building. Century code imposes a $20 million cap in outstanding loans per qualified applicant, Merkel said, and the revolving fund offers a low interest rate (the infrastructure fund is administered at about a 2% rate; a bill proposal had contemplated 1% in one draft). Loan terms can reach up to 30 years or the useful life of the asset.

Merkel said the combined administered funds (the active infrastructure revolving loan fund plus a legacy infrastructure fund used for liquidity) currently have about $7 million available for new loans; the legacy fund authorizes up to $150 million in transfers over time and roughly $100 million has already been transferred into the active fund, with capacity to transfer additional amounts as prior loans are repaid.

Representative Kathy Fralick, sponsor of House Bill 1213, asked the committee to consider a dedicated jail improvement loan fund and a separate oversight committee to recommend allocations and priorities. Other lawmakers cautioned about the size of proposals under consideration — including earlier drafts that contemplated hundreds of millions in authorization — and urged the committee to consider either (a) enlarging the existing infrastructure revolving loan fund or (b) directing appropriators to consider a specific set aside for jails rather than creating a large new vehicle.

Members debated whether grants or loans would be preferable: House Bill 1197 proposed a $50 million grant transfer from a strategic investment fund to support jail projects, while the revolving‑loan approach would require local repayment sources such as sales tax or property tax votes to demonstrate capacity to repay. Bank staff said loans are typically approved only after a project demonstrates an ability to repay, and the applicant must begin drawing on an approved loan within one year of approval.

Committee members discussed a mix of short‑term remodeling needs and long‑term capacity planning, including whether regional facilities could reduce per‑bed costs and address staffing shortages. Some members recommended converting one or both pending bills into a focused study that would generate an implementation plan and funding options rather than advancing a large appropriation immediately.

No committee vote was taken on either House Bill 1213 or House Bill 1197 during this hearing; members asked staff and Bank of North Dakota officials for more information and signaled interest in coordinating with appropriations and broader policy study efforts.","Lawmakers discussed House Bill 1213 (jail improvement revolving loan fund) and House Bill 1197 (proposed $50 million in grants) and heard from the Bank of North Dakota that counties can already borrow for jails from the state infrastructure revolving loan fund but that the fund currently has limited available cash.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357661,"Committee backs lowering perpetual‑care set‑aside to ease cemetery maintenance costs",1335,3485000,4820000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac&start=3485&end=4820","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac/thumbnail_3485000.jpg","/articles/6357661/North-Dakota/Committee-backs-lowering-perpetualcare-setaside-to-ease-cemetery-maintenance-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357661-f3f82a172ad14b0d6aa27771ec02bf89/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162887&Signature=ly3VanDhbtF0FKyR1vft8cpzufh00GY~MpvvQJbQ4ii1LlTlX54GmJOnVSUl1xsT6-V8X1hBSVXXnD~AVfRLdGqzM6k1KIbFynurbgyRV8nYhvjaNwueN7u8mMfnj9K6LnzQp--tQcN5s-rDF3SfWGbDG9R25QC4U081Ee6Oq~0oRGkBUDf-hYR1GnlwybBaMQKg3wrQtmiu~a2TsVs2LoC9ItfWbwSEz8mqMnp-kuuIRdydWamt74TQL6UzI1VoKENNkuk0IN9ANYLfBdb4a2WsV0asIvwT5RfRapynR7ZQ-E9NvIvwd1Dcc3WrR-Zm6~CMfUKFsdUQ48D-0eC8CA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Political Subdivisions Committee recommended a do‑pass for House Bill 1219 after hearing that some perpetual‑care cemetery associations face shrinking volunteer capacity and rising maintenance costs.

Representative Alisa Mitzgog presented the bill on behalf of Fairview Cemetery Association in Wahpeton. The bill would reduce the mandatory portion of lot‑sale proceeds that a perpetual‑care cemetery must place in its endowed care fund from 20% to 10%. Under current law, only the interest generated by the perpetual‑care fund may be used for maintenance; principal is generally held in trust and is accessible only in limited circumstances by court order.

Mitzgog told the committee Fairview Cemetery has roughly $100,000 in its perpetual‑care fund but that the association relies heavily on volunteers and now needs to hire part‑time help. Reducing the set‑aside to 10% of future lot sales, she said, would free up immediate cash for upkeep without eliminating an endowment.

Assistant Attorney General Lisonbee Hicks explained the legal framework for perpetual‑care funds: they are set up as trusts under chapter 23 and courts enforce protections that make dissolving or accessing principal a complex process. \"You can't just do it for any old reason,\" Hicks said, adding that the trust structure is meant to prevent easy depletion of funds that are intended to preserve cemeteries for the long term.

Committee members asked whether the bill creates only a floor or also would preclude additional voluntary contributions; Mitzgog confirmed the measure would lower the mandatory minimum and organizations could still set aside more. Representative Haddlestead moved a do‑pass recommendation; Representative Polinski seconded. The committee voted 12 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, not voting, and members placed the bill on the consent calendar.","The committee voted 12–0, 1 absent, to recommend a do‑pass on House Bill 1219, which would reduce the statutory minimum set‑aside for perpetual‑care cemetery fund contributions from 20% of lot sales to 10%, allowing associations to use more current revenue for maintenance.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6357665,"Committee recommends increasing prosecution witness reimbursement and allows counties to share unused funds",1601,1689000,3290000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac&start=1689&end=3290","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213820-4502c84d1e3e704829e46aa13dbfdbac/thumbnail_1689000.jpg","/articles/6357665/North-Dakota/Committee-recommends-increasing-prosecution-witness-reimbursement-and-allows-counties-to-share-unused-funds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357665-64bbad2616f989e7bbe34585d37d2470/orig.mp4?Expires=1771162887&Signature=lQTW2oglStdoUvW~CdAK-pAupnrVSkzWjQ6mFX2sIe0j1dsBnT~g1MvLHe7umfs7MY4h4CdY8wYCG9G~IzknbhNDCfOoa1yjjsLMFZkwvzM3CFX7G8cBxba4hbUN-JHeO4orct3TeFUul0--oPpn9MNQftZNt5pAY4WcBaNKxMFgTIEgs2lteEwzPUox9sZdb-gsdkJeCZlGCbnytb~Y1G7TzFHyLTF7PVcx4spNAMaCTmOgYaPxO6hNNUHPJauaQJSbLSMeMqOqguhBjahTAx5VOTTWMm9ZJWATP0bNL5nJGjST-reBgYmf79CRxkphEU5X87amGEL9hpW9MGnHaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The House Political Subdivisions Committee recommended a do‑pass for House Bill 1399 after hearing testimony that some counties routinely exceed the current reimbursement cap for prosecution witness expenses.

Representative Killemin introduced the bill on behalf of the North Dakota State’s Attorneys Association. The proposal would increase the statutory cap on county prosecution witness reimbursements from $25,000 to $30,000 per county per biennium. Under current practice, counties submit incurred prosecution witness expenses to the attorney general’s office for reimbursement; the attorney general’s office maintains the fund that reimburses those costs.

Rosa Larson, Ward County state’s attorney, told the committee Ward County routinely exceeds the current $25,000 cap and provided examples from 2023 and 2024 in which multiple homicide prosecutions produced large witness lists and substantial travel and per‑diem costs. Larson said one 2023 trial required a change of venue, producing more than $17,000 in witness costs for that case alone, and that a three‑week trial expected in March led her to budget roughly $40,000 for costs tied to travel and per diem.

\"Ward County exceeds that amount every single biennium,\" Larson said, describing large homicide cases and the associated number of subpoenaed witnesses as primary drivers of costs.

Tasha Gerdy, an accounting manager with the attorney general’s office, told the committee the office’s budget for witness reimbursements historically has been far below the sum of the statutory per‑county caps: the AG’s office budgets roughly $95,000 per biennium for the program and typically requests a deficiency appropriation because expenditures exceed that budget. Gerdy said the fiscal note for the bill shows a potential increase of $265,000 per biennium if the cap rises by $5,000 for each of 53 counties.

The bill would also allow a county that needs additional funds to enter into a written agreement with another county to obtain that county’s uncommitted funds; those transfers would be subject to the attorney general’s approval, supporters said, to avoid coercion or inappropriate use.

Representative Hager moved a do‑pass recommendation; Representative Haddleston seconded. The committee voted 12 yea, 0 nay, 1 absent, not voting. Committee members also discussed referring the bill to appropriations because of the fiscal impact; committee staff noted the fiscal note will travel with the bill.","The committee voted 12–0, 1 absent, to give House Bill 1399 a do‑pass recommendation. The bill raises the attorney general’s per‑county reimbursement cap for prosecution witness expenses from $25,000 to $30,000 per biennium and allows counties to enter written agreements to transfer unused funds to other counties with AG approval.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee backs narrow exemption so township supervisors can inspect roads without triggering open‑meetings law

Committee issues do‑not‑pass on House Bill 1434; sponsor to carry bill from the floor

Committee weighs new jail fund versus existing infrastructure loan fund; Bank of North Dakota briefs members on capacity and limits

Committee backs lowering perpetual‑care set‑aside to ease cemetery maintenance costs

Committee recommends increasing prosecution witness reimbursement and allows counties to share unused funds