[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6325092,"mediaKeyId","2334771-08aeaed050370251aebf41659da6ae07","parentId",2334771,"title","Appropriations committee advances DOT budget, funds transit and rural grants; several policy bills rejected","audioSeconds",2854,"startMs",3645360,"endMs",6500000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334771-08aeaed050370251aebf41659da6ae07&start=3645&end=6500","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334771-08aeaed050370251aebf41659da6ae07/thumbnail_3645360.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6325092/North-Dakota/Appropriations-committee-advances-DOT-budget-funds-transit-and-rural-grants-several-policy-bills-rejected","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325092-845cb26fb10eece504dce704e0e294aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159906&Signature=b5leXfdSYnxZQ7UCw~371akQzvCSnTaHeXHpYOvCbszVE6y6rXbrqHcs5KF-vaLW9q86LXARE15WafSdbEOV2tD3cWI29Kh0ji2H1NBRh3REp-G2QWjjKUP0GXsvf03vuSNDKWjOs59SHzc8tkbmuRSurg9~BbEqlJ9FrYm5ma7GuUH57r~US7qE6ju7qfLNlEjTFrCsDnAELjsPtX5bDNuPyRQod-KdraMCl~6rwtmLA3JmPXJDM8eQl8LVoZKl7lM7Sh9bZ3yVisCa5asteNIx5um7ARoPsqFrladQRRMFJWEzys95rOK6JKbNp4IqjQbqBsHKDAxELu5wfvQH8A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Appropriations - Government Operations Division met to deliberate multiple appropriations and policy bills, moving the Department of Transportation budget and several rural and transit measures while taking do-not-pass action on others.

A single-item summary: the committee approved the DOT budget (Senate Bill 2012) as amended, approved a reduced appropriation for a fixed-route transit bill, advanced a rural grocery grant for further consideration, and voted not to advance several standalone bills that were folded into the DOT package.

Why it matters: The committee’s actions reallocate and confirm state transportation and rural-support funding for the next biennium and set funding priorities for flexible transportation, legacy earnings allocations, short-line rail loans and several rural grant programs.

Key actions and outcomes (Votes at a glance)

- Rural grocery sustainability grant (02/1928): Motion for a due pass carried (mover: Senator Burkhart; seconder: Senator Dwyer). Tally: yes 3, no 2. Note: the motion moved the bill forward unchanged at the time of the roll call.

- Fixed-route transit appropriation (02/1954): Committee amended the appropriation downward from $5,000,000 to $2,000,000 (mover: Senator Sickler; seconder: Senator Eberly). Amendment passed (tally recorded as unanimous among committee members present). The bill then received a due pass as amended.

- Department of Transportation budget (Senate Bill 2012): Committee considered multiple technical and policy sections, adopted amendments (including continuing appropriation language for certain funds and SIF allocations of $171,300,000 for federal match and $100,000,000 for a US-85/Long X Bridge project), and passed the bill as amended. The committee adopted a further amendment to replace a continuing appropriation with an explicit appropriation amount for portions of the flexible transportation fund where leadership requested that change; final motions carried on recorded roll calls.

- Rural catalyst committee and related rural grant language (02/1990 and related bills): Committee discussed consolidating rural grocery support, rural catalyst grants, and other rural funding into a single approach. Members proposed reducing an initially proposed $30,000,000 appropriation down to $5,000,000 and tightening administrative expense language; committee work on final language and amendments continued and sponsors agreed to prepare revised amendment language.

- Do-not-pass actions on bills that were incorporated into the DOT package or otherwise superseded: several bills that largely overlapped with DOT budget provisions (notably bills addressing flexible funds and certain transportation appropriations) were given do-not-pass votes so the committee could rely on the DOT budget to address those topics.

Selected details from committee discussion

- Flexible transportation and legacy earnings. The DOT amendment package clarifies allocations from legacy earnings and creates or adjusts a flexible transportation fund. The amendment reduces some prior percentages (for example, a county/township road and bridge allocation described in the bill was reset to 12.5% in the new language) and reassigns one percentage point of market-value allocation to the flexible transportation fund.

- SIF (Strategic Investment Fund) items. The DOT amendment directs approximately $171.3 million from SIF to match federal highway funds and earmarks $100 million from SIF for the U.S. Highway 85 project (Long X Bridge). Committee members debated continuing-appropriation language for excise and other fund flows and then adjusted the bill to replace a continuing appropriation with an explicit appropriation for certain motor vehicle excise tax receipts per leadership direction.

- Administrative limits and program design. Committee members asked to tighten administrative expense language in the proposed rural catalyst bill, suggesting language modeled on existing travel/per diem limits used in other grant programs; sponsors volunteered to prepare redline text.

Unresolved or ongoing items

- Rural catalyst funding level and grocery-store language. Senators discussed whether to fold the rural grocery grant into the larger rural catalyst program and whether to reduce the proposed $30,000,000 fund to $5,000,000. Sponsors agreed to prepare amendment text and return the item to the committee.

- Evaluation metrics for transit and incentive programs. Committee members asked for clearer success metrics and return-on-investment measures tied to grants; DOT and other agencies agreed to provide details on program measurement and project carryover amounts on request.

Ending: The committee recessed with the DOT budget and several amended bills approved for further processing; multiple policy sponsors agreed to prepare amendment language for consolidated rural grant language and to provide supporting fiscal detail ahead of final floor consideration.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Appropriations - Government Operations Division Tuesday, Feb 18, 2025 8:06 AM - 10:51 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Appropriations - Government Operations Division met to deliberate multiple appropriations and policy bills, moving the Department of Transportation budget and several rural and transit measures while taking do-not-pass action on others.","taxTitle","Appropriations - Government Operations Division, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28900,"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},6325093,"Committee hears proposal to create $20 million insurance incentive fund to attract property coverage in North Dakota",3105,1420,3106580,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2334771-08aeaed050370251aebf41659da6ae07&start=1&end=3106","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2334771-08aeaed050370251aebf41659da6ae07/thumbnail_1420.jpg","/articles/6325093/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-proposal-to-create-20-million-insurance-incentive-fund-to-attract-property-coverage-in-North-Dakota","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6325093-8501fe132b0943a440290e81424aa6a0/orig.mp4?Expires=1771159906&Signature=bXFExYkA4Ia~CwBd~FHAQxsN6mTD4sedS4RAs2DYN7VSKrJalXcrg9DB3BnnvYq2WE28y4hrsPKk5KVsOGzpnW-UgAC~wbbHBjC92NoxNi4kpFRFw5MhEp6aownWrf-ndaYRr6AOuxPCO2g-34cPuCJOa-lziVvMNCXnf5EHGRJYdyOvqRmt3e9j~p1bt~tO21aWvcaBuKCIHknsJt9IXKg2YeAycN4pbRI9NGVcpuWw-Svo6exgHi~CmXJy6yYVco3~EioFLhf5Hyd2biqHjGIgM1T6gvM-vWQhUaBcYzUzVmicLqGyatZVSZxlMwUOLNZtnRIovNJoblZugTRgBQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Deputy Insurance Commissioner John Arnold told the Legislative Appropriations Committee that the state should create a North Dakota Insurance Incentive Program to encourage insurers to write property coverage in the state.

Arnold said the program would offer grants ranging from $2,000,000 to $10,000,000 that the insurer must match dollar-for-dollar; the state’s share would be paid out over five years (20% annually) contingent on benchmarks. “Insurers could apply for grants ranging from a minimum of $2,000,000 to a maximum of $10,000,000,” Arnold said. He added that grants would be tied to metrics insurers must meet before each annual payment is released.

Why it matters: Committee members pressed for detail because rising premiums, severe weather and limited insurer participation are driving affordability and availability concerns in North Dakota. Proponents framed the plan as a preventive measure to keep the market competitive and avoid the need for a costly state-run insurer of last resort such as Louisiana’s FAIR program.

Details of the proposal

- Match and payout. Grants would require a 1-to-1 private match and be paid 20% per year over five years. The minimum grant is $2,000,000; the maximum is $10,000,000.

- Performance benchmarks. Participating insurers must meet annual benchmarks to receive each payment. Arnold described a target that participating insurers generate at least $2 of new premiums for every $1 of combined grant plus insurer investment. Using his example: a $2.5 million state grant plus $2.5 million insurer investment (total $5 million) would be expected to produce roughly $10 million in new premium written.

- Eligibility safeguards. Arnold listed eligibility criteria intended to limit risk: a capital surplus of at least $10,000,000, satisfactory risk-based capital levels as shown in routine financial examinations, and an adequate reinsurance program.

- Domestic insurer carve-out. The plan would reserve at least 20% of incentive funding for North Dakota domestic insurers; Arnold told the committee domestic carriers currently write about 8.5% of the premium in the state, so the carve-out would be an over-allocation relative to current market share.

- Funding sources. As an initial funding mechanism, the department proposed earmarking $20,000,000 of premium tax receipts that now flow to the general fund. Arnold also proposed converting any excess dollars from the Insurance Regulatory Trust Fund (above the legislatively mandated retention cap) into the incentive fund until the $20,000,000 cap is reached; he testified the department typically rolls roughly $3,000,000 per year from that trust fund into the general fund under current practice.

Committee concerns and discussion

Committee members questioned whether the program would simply subsidize premiums or provide the capital necessary for new products and market entry. Senator Dwyer said it “sounds to me like we’re just subsidizing somebody’s premium,” and asked how the program would lower rates. Arnold replied the intent is to lower barriers to entry and attract new products and competitors, which in turn could stabilize or slow premium increases, and emphasized the benchmarks and review process before funds are disbursed.

Several senators noted North Dakota is not yet experiencing the scale of market collapse seen in some states, and that the policy committee earlier reported the bill without recommendation by a 3–2 vote. Committee members also pressed on oversight and measurement: Arnold said the primary metric of success would be new premiums written tied to the program (e.g., $10 of premium written for a $5 combined investment example) and that the department would require annual reporting and verification before making payments.

Unresolved points

The committee did not take a formal vote on the proposal during this hearing. Members expressed differing views about whether to proceed now or wait until market conditions deteriorate further. Questions remained about whether the initial $20,000,000 should be a one-time appropriation, how quickly the fund would be replenished if used, and whether the carve-out for domestic insurers sufficiently mitigates concerns about harming local carriers.

What happens next

Arnold closed by offering to take questions and to provide additional detail on program mechanics and fiscal estimates if the committee requests follow-up. No motion or final action on a bill implementing the program was recorded during the session excerpted here.

Ending: The department framed the incentive program as a proactive, performance-based option to increase market competition and expand coverage availability, particularly in rural areas; the committee left the measure under consideration with follow-up questions and no recorded vote.","Deputy Insurance Commissioner John Arnold told the Legislative Appropriations Committee that the state should create a North Dakota Insurance Incentive Program to encourage insurers to write property coverage in the state.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appropriations committee advances DOT budget, funds transit and rural grants; several policy bills rejected

Committee hears proposal to create $20 million insurance incentive fund to attract property coverage in North Dakota