[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-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],{"_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",6357643,"mediaKeyId","2213840-f9d76300ff6425598c7c0045c4c7652d","parentId",2213840,"title","Senate hears proposal to raise work‑zone fines and apply them regardless of visible workers","audioSeconds",2795,"startMs",4532000,"endMs",7327000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213840-f9d76300ff6425598c7c0045c4c7652d&start=4532&end=7327","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213840-f9d76300ff6425598c7c0045c4c7652d/thumbnail_4532000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6357643/North-Dakota/Senate-hears-proposal-to-raise-workzone-fines-and-apply-them-regardless-of-visible-workers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357643-019f207b7fec0f5097eb1653653ae8da/orig.mp4?Expires=1771119327&Signature=BFAmBkMiXXKAS4kZs2Oun0RG8LfwM2ezW6oWQ1dDDc2TlcLvyVbIT5ha8sMqZf5hL1xI9pcOJPNnMqICPwtuTZtOEna9N~jtfr-1RAVNhq9--ed-lu-EABsYZEnIcmVjFTGbMQetAcb9O3wpOuXRA3Jl14ecsMVLT8SOoQFm0PIVrLBo9W3Wp0~rpDfMlkn2Yi4Ef0uf86V9vLRUEAlpQvcjRCoBotDQvSY6CaavCvyYvXCOT4FEIVSRRdZhlcKm83zND3dN1ryUGnJmEfSjgLXvSBwNIacR6t8KJ~gE6B-jmV9Ew21j9J2FEFAVhalL1Cs8ncSR4Ce1iRtSzY8jcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Senate Transportation, ND","date","2025-01-31T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Transportation Committee members heard testimony on Senate Bill 2183, a proposal to increase fines for speeding in construction zones and to make the enhanced penalty apply whenever a posted construction‑zone speed limit is in effect rather than only when workers are physically present.

Sponsor Senator Dean Rummel said the current $80 fine has lost deterrent effect and that harsher penalties would encourage safer driving around work zones. “This bill is all about safety,” Rummel said, presenting crash and citation data from the last two years and asking the committee to adopt a higher, behavior‑changing penalty.

The bill as introduced would increase the minimum fine for 1–10 miles per hour over the posted construction‑zone limit to $150; if a driver exceeds the limit by more than 10 mph the fine would be $150 plus $2 for each mile per hour above 10 over the limit. The bill also proposes removing statutory language that limits the enhanced penalty to times “when individuals are engaged in construction” in the zone.

Rummel cited statewide figures for 2023–24 that committee testimony repeated during the hearing: 523 crashes in work zones (13 with suspected serious injury, 71 with minor injury, 63 possible injury, and 376 with no apparent injury), and 1,313 speeding citations issued by the Highway Patrol in construction zones across the same period. The citation breakdown attendees quoted included 8 citations 1–5 over, 352 at 6–10 over, 338 at 11–15 over, 334 at 16–20 over and 281 at 21+ over the limit.

Construction and contractor groups said the change is overdue. Russ Hanson of the Associated General Contractors said the association pressed for an amount that would be meaningful but likely to pass the Legislature; he said $150 is a politically pragmatic starting point and noted neighboring states have higher penalties. “No, it’s not [high enough],” Hanson said when asked whether $150 was adequate, “but having been around here for a lot of sessions … we wanted to come up with a number that can have a meaningful impact but yet pass.”

Nate Sandberg, vice president and safety manager for Northern Improvement, described on‑the‑ground safety risks and supported removing the “workers present” condition. “Enforcement needs to begin as soon as that construction zone starts regardless of worker presence,” Sandberg said, listing reasons workers might not be visible at every moment (concrete cure time, weather delays, phasing, paint striping, supply chain delays). Sandberg and other contractors told the committee the motorist should be required to slow in a posted work zone even if workers are not visible.

Safety advocates and law‑enforcement witnesses supported higher penalties but raised questions about enforcement practice. Don Moseman of the North Dakota Safety Council and a former Colorado state trooper cited research and MUTCD guidance that increasing penalties helps deter speeding; he said Colorado saw a marked drop in work‑zone speeding after raising fines and doubling penalties in construction zones. “It is not about the fine amount. It is about the fine acting as a deterrent,” he said.

Sergeant Jenna Claussen Huberts of the North Dakota Highway Patrol testified in a neutral capacity about enforcement realities. She said troopers typically concentrate enforcement activity when workers are present; dash‑camera evidence can lead to dismissed citations if the worker presence is not visible in a recording. Huberts said the patrol currently uses overtime‑funded saturation enforcement when crews are working and that removing the “workers present” language could change how the public interprets when enhanced fines apply.

Members debated the “workers present” language. Senator Susan Paulson and others said signs that read “when workers are present” can help motorists judge whether to slow; backers of removal said signage and common travel conditions produce ambiguity and that motorists cannot be relied upon to judge worker presence consistently, especially given distracted driving. Sandberg, Moseman and DOT deputy director Matt Lineman argued that the lane configurations, narrow travel lanes and changing pavements in work zones cause safety risks for workers and the public even when workers are not visible and that enforcement should apply to posted work zones regardless.

Members also compared fines with neighboring states: Minnesota’s work‑zone minimum was cited at about $300, South Dakota doubles some fines or imposes up to $500 or jail, and Montana doubles a baseline in some cases. Some committee members asked whether $150 is high enough to deter behavior given those comparisons; supporters said $150 is an achievable increase that could be raised later if warranted.

Testimony included a firsthand account of a crew member struck on a project in Wells County earlier in the season; AGC referred to that case as a strong motivating example for the bill. Trucking representatives including the North Dakota Motor Carriers Association said they support the measure to protect drivers and workers.

The committee did not vote during the hearing. Sponsors and agency staff said they would continue to work on technical drafting and enforcement detail before further committee action.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Transportation Jan 31, 2025\t","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Transportation Committee members heard testimony on Senate Bill 2183, a proposal to increase fines for speeding in construction zones and to make the enhanced penalty apply whenever a posted construction‑zone speed limit is in effect rather than only when workers are physically present.","taxTitle","Transportation, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28909,"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},6357648,"Senate panel hears bill to simplify titles for older \"fence‑row\" vehicles",3755,672000,4427000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213840-f9d76300ff6425598c7c0045c4c7652d&start=672&end=4427","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213840-f9d76300ff6425598c7c0045c4c7652d/thumbnail_672000.jpg","/articles/6357648/North-Dakota/Senate-panel-hears-bill-to-simplify-titles-for-older-fencerow-vehicles","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357648-74a10309aab885b594a8f34b978f432f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771119327&Signature=gz9JjMgrY28mN4AmEfGptGfiQ1ShAFxZ6AtgZJ6-dE13Selfjs6aBWScZVwQG6JxsrCIL6FzQV72rigrmni7DCpkjyOQ3x0zp2ffi--YBg6zqg22czFugdu2pbnkekKqck-C6gEh0CS~uPFGJgF6aCAMQewGLjMEzSi8SDOWBYyYw5u7m8MXRPMJJZg1fqAgW8qUGzIMTPOt4J0DFn-GIq4AJnJUtB0jhjafl5l97fo5ZUOIYClJinkIKAjVrGg4wB0Xb9wBBiWEOapBQqHFYp8c4DakDalXYs~nWvf672LFVwjHYQDHwi7z7FjCxx8UmEHNOdJ8uKK7uSmFhzvkWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Transportation Committee Chairman David Clemens opened a hearing on Senate Bill 2247, which would create an affidavit‑based path to title ownership of older, untitled vehicles, allowing buyers or restorers to obtain a certificate of title for vehicles more than 40 years old.

Proponents told the committee the measure would reduce costly, time‑consuming court processes and let people who inherit or buy long‑stored vehicles document ownership without an original title or a notarized bill of sale.

Senator Paul Thomas, R‑District 6, told the committee he introduced the bill after constituents and car‑club members reported repeated problems obtaining titles for decades‑old vehicles. “The heart of this bill is really on the last page in section E,” Thomas said, adding that the draft replaces a “statement of ownership” with an “affidavit of ownership” and gives applicants the option to declare a vehicle purchase price on the form.

Under Thomas’s draft, when a transferee is a person and the vehicle is more than 40 years old at the time of application, satisfactory proof of ownership would be established by a notarized affidavit of ownership containing make, model, VIN, description of how the applicant came into possession, and certification of no liens. The applicant would bring the affidavit to the Department of Motor Vehicles; DMV staff would still perform their standard checks, including confirming the vehicle is not listed as stolen.

The bill reflects repeated testimony from restoration hobbyists and owners who said current procedures are cumbersome or effectively impossible in many cases. Warren Heidenreich of Mandan told the committee the bill “would help us to put so people would know that's our vehicle,” describing a truck he bought for $200 and later sold for $5,000 but could not easily title. Robert “Pete” Honrut of Bismarck described using a workaround in which he temporarily sold and repurchased a car so he could obtain a title, saying, “I sold it to him. I bought it back from him so I could get a title.”

Several witnesses urged the committee to remove the requirement for a notarized bill of sale or to permit the affidavit in place of a bill of sale. Richard Johnson, a longtime collector, said the bill would provide a stable, statewide procedure instead of relying on ad‑hoc solutions from individual DMV staff. Roger Gauzer, a restoration professional and club member, supported parts of the bill but urged the committee to consider an assigned VIN process for some very old cars (for example, Model A bodies that never bore a readable chassis number).

Senator Tony Hogan asked whether the 40‑year cutoff was intended to reduce theft risk; he said keeping a higher threshold could prevent fraud. “It is because of the potential risk,” Hogan said, supporting the distinction between newer vehicles and older vehicles of low market value. Thomas and other witnesses said most vehicles older than 40 years have relatively low market value and that the affidavit would carry legal liability for false statements.

Melissa Diebolds of the Motor Vehicle Division, Department of Transportation, told the committee she and DOT staff reviewed an amended draft and remained essentially neutral, saying they saw “no huge red flags that we can't work through” with the sponsor. Diebolds and other DOT staff noted DMV would continue procedural checks beyond accepting an affidavit, including VIN verification and stolen‑vehicle database queries.

Supporters asked the committee to eliminate or relax requirements that they said are barriers in the present administrative process, such as tracing prior owners and producing bills of sale for vehicles that have been on farmsteads or in barns for decades. Opponents who testified earlier in the session raised concerns about assigned VIN procedures and the need for clear administrative standards so local DMV offices apply the rule consistently.

The committee heard multiple anecdotal examples of vehicles left on farms, acquired informally, or passed down in family estates; witnesses said a predictable administrative form—a notarized affidavit created by the department—would let owners legalize titles without expensive court actions. Thomas said the proposed affidavit would ask for descriptive information, the applicant’s attestation regarding liens and ownership, and a notarized signature.

The bill does not change DMV's ability to run checks for theft, outstanding liens or other encumbrances; DMV staff said those checks would remain part of the process. The sponsor said the affidavit would not eliminate enforcement tools and would carry legal consequences for false statements.

The hearing closed with the committee accepting the testimony; members did not take a vote at the hearing. Committee staff and DOT indicated they will continue to work with the sponsor on technical language and implementation details.

The committee left the record open for further material and may take the bill up in a subsequent meeting.

","Senate Transportation Committee Chairman David Clemens opened a hearing on Senate Bill 2247, which would create an affidavit‑based path to title ownership of older, untitled vehicles, allowing buyers or restorers to obtain a certificate of title for vehicles more than 40 years old.",{"_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},6357639,"Bill to shield small speeding violations from insurers draws industry opposition",2824,7733000,10557000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2213840-f9d76300ff6425598c7c0045c4c7652d&start=7733&end=10557","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2213840-f9d76300ff6425598c7c0045c4c7652d/thumbnail_7733000.jpg","/articles/6357639/North-Dakota/Bill-to-shield-small-speeding-violations-from-insurers-draws-industry-opposition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6357639-2be3c71600e7ce78723b2ecd02e1be11/orig.mp4?Expires=1771119327&Signature=Rsxj2VouPxfM750uSmZGKZDuDTFS8E3wNAHVckrGvew0ZH9Utg1UOeSZp~zOWeOAX5SUzhEx61U9tYdWG10xMz1pdS55qtOaU0jW8pb9hP9eO4CL6Az0JhOhEZ~Z3GYFlnWTjr3p5PnDLzNpZCNst7u~i6UHCwD7LkrJ0kUkJo08cjpXyj93~n0xgT-xtM4Db-rEsbqC~GVMMyq7KKpQF~-FjuP~t5-4TyPvUQ6K1aAbD3c0zklcoYoGl25QQ~jq4F2Hz4vPULh9lymN4TrpmagDSxsXtazwsCJIqH6gvXUbm4gMtOS2mytcEWH4ryomeG5N2S97gpy63-XJm2gkTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senator David Clemens told the Senate Transportation Committee he introduced Senate Bill 2243 to change how low‑level speeding offenses are reflected in the state driving record and shared with insurance companies, saying the current system can cause significant, multiyear premium increases for otherwise low‑risk drivers.

Clemens said the bill would remove the single point currently assessed for 6–10 mph over the limit and would prevent 0‑point violations from being reported to insurers or made public, though the Department of Transportation would maintain internal records of those violations. “Traffic violations of 6 to 10 miles per hour over the speed limit are currently being reported to insurance companies and creating substantial increases in insurance rates,” Clemens told the committee.

Those testifying in favor described individual stories of out‑of‑proportion cost impacts. Ronald Sorum of West Fargo said his household’s insurance rose after a separate driver—insured on a shared policy—received a 10‑mph‑over citation. Sorum said the single citation produced an extra roughly $80 every six months per vehicle over a three‑year window, which he calculated at nearly $500 total; he urged the committee to stop routine low‑level citations from being used by insurers to raise premiums.

Insurance industry witnesses urged caution. Rob Hovland of the Association of North Dakota Insurers said insurers need accurate claims and violation data to price risk; he warned that if the state prevented companies from using routine citations it could force insurers to spread higher costs across broader groups of drivers. “If you take away a mechanism that’s part of the premium calculation or the risk assessment, it’s going to result in something being inaccurate,” Hovland said. He gave the example of Montana limiting gender from underwriting: the result was 16‑year‑old girls paying higher rates because the pool was rebalanced.

Hovland and other industry witnesses said the actual recent rate increases many consumers have experienced are driven largely by national factors—post‑pandemic inflation, supply‑chain and repair‑cost increases, and catastrophe losses—not only by individual minor violations. Several insurers also said different carriers use different underwriting tools; some companies rely on the state’s point system, others evaluate specific violations directly.

Legislators and witnesses noted the issue’s complexity and suggested the state should review the point schedule. Senator Dean Rummel and others said the point system has become “broken” over many sessions because individual violations and point values have been added in piecemeal fashion. DOT driver‑and‑vehicle director Brad Shafer told the committee the agency’s record system could be adjusted to reintroduce a split‑record model (so that some violations are shared while others are withheld) with modest programming work and a reprioritization of development tasks.

The Insurance Commissioner’s office and industry representatives invited the Legislature to consider a structured review of point values and reporting practices rather than a blanket ban on sharing all low‑level violations. The committee also heard that House Bill 1250, recently passed in the House and messaged to the Senate, would revert the record‑sharing rules to the state’s earlier approach; some committee members suggested the bills be reconciled.

The hearing closed without a committee vote. Committee staff and agency representatives said they would supply technical information, and members discussed whether to use the bill as a vehicle to study point values and the reporting regime.

","Senate Bill 2243 would stop reporting zero‑point violations to insurers and remove the single point for 6–10 mph over the speed limit. Supporters said the change would prevent minor speeding citations from triggering large insurance increases; insurers warned hiding routine violations would skew risk pools and could raise rates for others","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate hears proposal to raise work‑zone fines and apply them regardless of visible workers

Senate panel hears bill to simplify titles for older "fence‑row" vehicles

Bill to shield small speeding violations from insurers draws industry opposition