[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-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],{"_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",6317497,"mediaKeyId","2372471-7c9647ec208931adfc328aeefa0b6a4e","parentId",2372471,"title","Senate rejects bill to withhold infrastructure funds from local governments that restrict energy or agricultural projects","audioSeconds",2158,"startMs",7282000,"endMs",9440000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372471-7c9647ec208931adfc328aeefa0b6a4e&start=7282&end=9440","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372471-7c9647ec208931adfc328aeefa0b6a4e/thumbnail_7282000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6317497/North-Dakota/Senate-rejects-bill-to-withhold-infrastructure-funds-from-local-governments-that-restrict-energy-or-agricultural-projects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317497-89724404920924450a9795ab1465ec81/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152280&Signature=TPJh-MPBiNn-SRRovy3IGeFSlJEcA94abRwYDiVHIPJh9pp6qiSCym3mylrgUX7zqU1jwN77zupubE6At5wzdY29f5kAUVHPw5HBLwjOdhsyLQCGc401F8cn8Be9hbiBMqXHW3amBL3RV8rsdW6XaqV9KY3kcgNOgiyQXIic~srbUtxdTP-EG-EJUbwfDH5PTpc-qEs9DhnaYeDhsCEYxg-uN4nBVvpQLDvpLytcgulN4sLBjAbm4Gn6jU7X8UiNvDTYw47bi7OdQhWBPfEmbvxDmsKB0mMKPfQeaQwjwZGiSXQCeVix3V~nYa5sDKHT0YN0f16Kw9z4ywdo6DRaKw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-21T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 22‑08, a contentious measure that would have conditioned municipal and county eligibility for certain infrastructure grants on compliance with state policy on energy and large agricultural infrastructure, failed in the Senate 19–27 after robust floor debate.

The amended bill would have redirected a portion of oil and gas tax revenue (often described in debate as the “prairie dog fund” or municipal infrastructure fund) so that political subdivisions that enact ordinances blocking or impeding permitted linear energy infrastructure or certain confined animal feeding operations could be deemed ineligible for those grants. The bill would have made grant eligibility contingent on compliance and allowed appeals to the Board of University and School Lands.

Senator Boehm, the bill carrier, framed the proposal as protecting communities that have long hosted heavy energy infrastructure. He said the state’s revenue sharing depends on significant energy production concentrated in a few counties and asked why a political subdivision that objects to energy infrastructure should still share in revenue generated by that infrastructure.

Opponents called the bill punitive and an erosion of local control. Senator Grama said it targets specific districts and “is an attack on first amendment” and warned it would punish local governments for exercising zoning and land‑use authority. Several senators from rural districts and on both sides of the aisle described the bill as targeted at isolated disputes and likely to generate costly litigation and community division.

Senator Patton defended the bill on constitutional and statutory grounds, arguing the legislature routinely defines the powers and limits of political subdivisions and can set funding conditions. Opponents countered that the bill’s approach singled out certain local governments for financial penalties and risked undermining longstanding local planning authority.

The final tally was 19 ayes, 27 nays, 1 absent. Sponsors said they may pursue narrower legislative options; critics said the defeat affirmed local control.

Because the bill was lost, its provisions will not move forward. Floor debate highlighted the policy tension between statewide infrastructure priorities tied to energy development and local land‑use authority; senators who opposed the bill urged continued negotiation between industry, local governments and landowners instead of statutory penalties.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","69th Legislative Assembly - Senate Floor Session Friday, Feb 21, 2025 12:25 PM - 3:27 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The North Dakota Senate voted down Senate Bill 22‑08, a measure that would have withheld or redirected infrastructure grant funds from local governments that adopt ordinances restricting certain energy and large agricultural projects.","taxTitle","Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28311,"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},6317507,"Senate approves Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship after hours of debate",1609,2793000,4402000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372471-7c9647ec208931adfc328aeefa0b6a4e&start=2793&end=4402","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372471-7c9647ec208931adfc328aeefa0b6a4e/thumbnail_2793000.jpg","/articles/6317507/North-Dakota/Senate-approves-Office-of-Guardianship-and-Conservatorship-after-hours-of-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317507-7aa9c722833c2dcd93b36db4f6140e9f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152280&Signature=hx2G78Hz1QUllySpagzmCV46ZqkwPFkDFML99vr6FC6k5s0Wczz3uLsMiDFd6cLQ9wRzNXUVyJQ30mZr48VQuxaIkRMVRh99QbPzQnPSKDmrRKUR~9dCVeWkG-FvD-d9OrsPXmnkrZ76jgieW-S7gtS-GM1s0unHV8kBwE9EqpS6SbEGlUcQj0AljdB8-JMtpA29mk-a-q3Jo9AkOuJDCnArQNxNATuvp0nTdsEIKnzrcanpdT7Cv9SdjEPqW8VOaDItzrUXxUnAPMgPMZejhmx7XMmwtGP5faVd4QmfUF2t~6CLHVYjvB8yFnEGwpUnUn3cS5Awt54RulYQr4nY6Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 20‑29, which would create an Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship (OGC) under the North Dakota Supreme Court, passed the Senate 24–23 after nearly two hours of floor debate.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Paulson, said the measure is intended to “address the lack of accountability and cohesiveness of guardianship programs and funding within our state.” The bill consolidates eight adult guardianship programs and multiple funding streams into a single OGC, charges the office with licensing professional guardians and conservators, centralizes complaint intake and investigations, and establishes administrative review and enforcement mechanisms.

Supporters said the change responds to documented abuses and the limits of the current patchwork system. Senator Paulson cited past federal criminal and civil cases involving a large guardianship provider and said the OGC will give the state authority to investigate misconduct and revoke licenses. “The OGC will allow us to do so,” he said on the floor.

Opponents — including Senators Lee, Rummel and Hogan — argued the OGC places regulatory and direct-service roles too close to the judicial branch and risks conflicts of interest because the courts appoint guardians and also would oversee the new office. Senator Lee said the proposal “borders on the offensive” to many professional guardians who currently provide services and warned the bill adds substantial staff and enforcement resources that may not be necessary. Senator Hogan and other critics urged caution about folding direct-service oversight into a court‑affiliated office.

The bill moves multiple programs and funding lines into a new continuing fund and prohibits a person from acting as guardian for three or more adults without a license. It requires licensing for anyone who advertises guardianship services, establishes a review board to conduct administrative hearings, and grants the attorney general responsibility for criminal investigations while the AG’s office would defend the OGC in civil suits.

Senators pressed sponsors on funding details. The floor record and committee materials show a variety of appropriation figures were discussed during committee work: the package in committee materials totaled roughly $15,246,400 after adjustments, with references to prior program totals including a $7.1 million PASST line and an earlier estimate near $18.3 million. The bill also limits payment to public guardians who exceed a caseload threshold and creates a new fund to hold transferred appropriations.

After extended questioning and several floor speeches for and against the bill, the Senate recorded a close final tally: 24 ayes, 23 nays. With the vote the measure will move to the House for consideration.

The debate was extensive and touched on objectors’ concern about judicial branch placement, the number and roles of new FTEs, the handling of existing appropriations in other budgets, and how investigative resources would be allocated between the OGC, the attorney general and BCI. Supporters said the change responds to recurring, documented failures under the existing fragmented oversight model and will strengthen protections for vulnerable wards.

If the House passes the bill as written, the OGC would take on licensing, complaint intake and centralized funding functions previously spread across multiple agencies.","Senate Bill 20‑29, which would create an Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship (OGC) under the North Dakota Supreme Court, passed the Senate 24–23 after nearly two hours of floor debate.",{"_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},6317491,"Votes at a glance: key roll calls from the North Dakota Senate on Feb. 21, 2025",6453,747000,7200000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372471-7c9647ec208931adfc328aeefa0b6a4e&start=747&end=7200","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372471-7c9647ec208931adfc328aeefa0b6a4e/thumbnail_747000.jpg","/articles/6317491/North-Dakota/Votes-at-a-glance-key-roll-calls-from-the-North-Dakota-Senate-on-Feb-21-2025","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317491-2baeb768d8c041b549ea65900da4e088/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152280&Signature=j7MjlOkOJWUnEVDhv4fpSZH~YW~FfW-88UQ00ql9rAM9uRPUaTmBov2ykLxgFxCIDwcCrbvVYUNRss17GqRPQkeigh9u9lbAYz1VCaoCLFQNY0~xQ1~X3q1wJYp2FNL-sZBcTFv6RKodsl5vFo0E6WPy0vYBY3Cj~MtdEFzYOfCjWjDVXZqhGW4BTDrmiPxnmKQ948aTt36BPdsUJs7WkLxNvdWr38NZ8dS~jS0Co8Uxo68eUa-5TRE4hLgZ6MsOZ~o-7wys2-HOfoxEwXm1P3BFNezarxz24ZYqP-SAG01SPtzH0Nl9MzPPCyzc46oaE-ubaiGZAk3cHwBCKCmDww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The North Dakota Senate took final actions on multiple bills during its Feb. 21 session. Below are summarized outcomes, tallies and key details recorded on the floor.

Ryan Norell — Gaming Commission nomination
The Senate advised and consented to the nomination of Ryan Norell to the gaming commission. Final tally: 47 ayes, 0 nays.

Senate Bill 23‑42 — Value‑added milk processing incentives
Summary: Amendments authorized a Bank of North Dakota line of credit and limited grants to the lesser of $10,000,000 or 5% of total construction; the bill passed on final tally 46 ayes, 1 nay.
Vote: 46 ayes, 1 nay.

Senate Bill 22‑86 — UND health professions study (amendment removed building appropriation)
Summary: Appropriations committee and floor amended the bill to retain a legislative study and remove direct funding for construction; final passage 47 ayes, 0 nays.
Vote: 47 ayes, 0 nays.

Senate Bill 22‑54 — DOT fixed‑route and paratransit grants
Summary: One‑time appropriation to assist fixed‑route transit services in four communities; amended appropriation reduced from $5,000,000 to $2,000,000 in committee; final passage 43 ayes, 4 nays.
Vote: 43 ayes, 4 nays.

Senate Bill 22‑65 — Fargo National Cemetery grant/line of credit
Summary: Authorized a line of credit and contingent $3,000,000 in state funds to support a veterans facility pending VA approval; final tally reported as 47 ayes, 0 nays (floor record shows full chamber consent). (Floor clarifications noted possibility that title language should reflect loan vs grant.)
Vote: 47 ayes, 0 nays.

Senate Bill 21‑88 — Clean Sustainable Energy Authority funding
Summary: Added Department of Water Resources director to technical review committee, provided $15,000,000 in grants and $40,000,000 in loans for CS E Authority; final passage 44 ayes, 3 nays.
Vote: 44 ayes, 3 nays.

Senate Bill 23‑79 — Eminent domain surveying process
Summary: Clarified surveying entries in eminent domain: required written landowner consent or court order and limited claims to negligence, wantonness or malice; final passage 25 ayes, 22 nays.
Vote: 25 ayes, 22 nays.

Senate Bill 23‑35 — Surface owner protection (oil and gas disputes)
Summary: Required pretrial independent appraisals and clarified fee‑recovery rules in disputes between surface owners and mineral developers; final passage 47 ayes, 0 nays.
Vote: 47 ayes, 0 nays.

Senate Bill 22‑99 — Water district oversight and election transparency
Summary: Required state auditor audits for certain water districts, clarified petition and ballot access rules, and set standards for elections and vacancies; final passage 47 ayes, 0 nays.
Vote: 47 ayes, 0 nays.

Senate Bill 23‑62 — School accreditation flexibility
Summary: Allowed schools to pursue varied accreditation models; final passage 42 ayes, 4 nays, 1 absent.
Vote: 42 ayes, 4 nays, 1 absent.

Senate Bill 22‑28 — Rural grocery sustainability grant program
Summary: Appropriation to support rural grocery store sustainability efforts; final passage 40 ayes, 6 nays, 1 absent.
Vote: 40 ayes, 6 nays, 1 absent.

Senate Bill 22‑39 — Apprenticeship grant program
Summary: Created an apprenticeship grant program to subsidize startup costs and expand registered apprenticeships; final passage 45 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent.
Vote: 45 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent.

Senate Bill 22‑43 — Driver's license point system revisions
Summary: Committee and floor amendments adjusted point assignments for numerous violations (e.g., increasing points for distracted driving and following too close); final passage 34 ayes, 12 nays, 1 absent.
Vote: 34 ayes, 12 nays, 1 absent.

Senate Bill 23‑57 — Study on composite mental health licensing board
Summary: Transformed an earlier proposal into a legislative management study on feasibility and impacts of a composite mental health licensing board; final passage 45 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent.
Vote: 45 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent.

Senate Bill 23‑27 — Agriculture Diversification and Development (AD) fund uses
Summary: Appropriation and transfer language for the AD fund; amendment reduced certain appropriations; final passage 45 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent.
Vote: 45 ayes, 1 nay, 1 absent.

Senate Bill 22‑72 — Insurance incentive grant program (lost)
Summary: Proposed grant program for insurers to address property/casualty market disruptions; the Appropriations Committee recommended do‑not‑pass and the bill failed 3 ayes, 43 nays, 1 absent.
Vote: 3 ayes, 43 nays, 1 absent.

Notes on procedure
All tallies above are taken from the Senate floor record that day. Where committee amendments were adopted on the floor, the roundup notes the primary substantive change. For bills that passed, sponsors and committee chairs indicated that appropriation and implementation details would be refined in budget bills or in the other chamber.","A roundup of bills, amendments and nominations the North Dakota Senate voted on during the Feb. 21 floor session, including final tallies and one‑sentence summaries of each item.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":93,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6317502,"Senate narrowly approves education savings account program after heated debate",3651,3549000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2372471-7c9647ec208931adfc328aeefa0b6a4e&start=3549&end=7200","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2372471-7c9647ec208931adfc328aeefa0b6a4e/thumbnail_3549000.jpg","/articles/6317502/North-Dakota/Senate-narrowly-approves-education-savings-account-program-after-heated-debate","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6317502-7b259a55c74a8f47d6d085ebad51cb67/orig.mp4?Expires=1771152280&Signature=at-iqpvqJ0G7pWbKJtNFRZ7pmKa2C0rlC3wr07iKIv28wLdDHdFTcCYnulgvVJD5OSThnPrYQe4jXF~Hk4OTfsf3XQEN4P5nTVzYYMyxnNxYPyuVlJXv8IRmWaGucvUO~g0Hv8ud-VIulSFL3zWeu18Uos~5RL4d3NM4X6R0Gnh3CmhtAi06aLuBr3YAbXDu2m2xJyh0FZPqOSESeii6t9b-AiJt27yK7ME5ut~r4cEGpi1J80RC7VU5yip2ALNliwLM7-6skg~SdhNqwmSoNg4aCRxhWs6Jb9N~CtcccyXGiIYOJou~A2CKmDvvUw6AjWO3tR8zsqTZospXeOGgwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The North Dakota Senate approved Senate Bill 2,400, a measure establishing a statewide Education Savings Account (ESA) program, by a 25–22 vote following extended floor debate and a failed amendment that would have sharply narrowed eligibility.

Senator Axman, the bill carrier, described the program as a three‑tier structure administered by the Department of Public Instruction. Under the version passed by the Senate, the first tier would make a modest ESA available to all public school students (the amended figure on the floor reduced that amount to $500). The second tier provides larger, means‑tested allotments for students enrolled in nonpublic participating schools: with amounts keyed to household income bands (for families at 300% of the federal poverty level and below, the larger allotment; reduced amounts for higher income bands). The third tier creates a smaller ESA for home‑educated students (the floor amendment discussion lowered that to $500 under one amendment attempt).

Supporters, including Senators Axman, Bridal and others, said the program would expand access to services—such as dual credit courses, specialized therapies and coursework—not readily available in some rural districts. Senator Axman said the digital marketplace envisioned by the bill would vet and list approved educational services and allow families to use account funds to purchase them.

Opponents raised budgetary and policy concerns. Senator Dwyer and others argued that the bill—for which the fiscal note estimated roughly $58 million—would divert substantial state funds to individual student accounts, including for public school students, and risk layering new spending onto existing per‑pupil investment. Dwyer said the bill “is not a school choice bill” in practice but instead “a bill to provide additional educational services to all students at a cost of $58,000,000.”

Senator Matherne offered an amendment that would have replaced the three‑tier design with a narrower means‑tested account limited to lower‑income families and a $1,000 account size; that amendment failed on a verification vote (17 ayes, 30 nays). Floor debate also included technical questions about whether accounts would be limited to North Dakota students and how accounts could be used for school meals or other services. Sponsors said administration by the Department of Public Instruction and the marketplace approach would allow oversight and vendor vetting.

After debate and the failed amendment, the Senate recorded final passage: 25 ayes, 22 nays. Senators who voted with the majority emphasized rural access, choice of supplemental services, and support for students with special needs; those in the minority emphasized fiscal conservatism and potential federal strings attached if funding sources change.

The bill now moves to the House for further consideration. Sponsors and opponents both signaled that the program’s implementation details—particularly vendor vetting, eligibility rules for cross‑border students, and the final appropriation level—will be addressed during budget negotiations and in the other chamber.","The North Dakota Senate passed Senate Bill 2,400 to create a tiered Education Savings Account program that provides state‑funded accounts for public, nonpublic and home‑educated students. The bill passed 25–22 after extended debate and a failed floor amendment seeking a narrower, means‑tested approach.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Senate rejects bill to withhold infrastructure funds from local governments that restrict energy or agricultural projects

Senate approves Office of Guardianship and Conservatorship after hours of debate

Votes at a glance: key roll calls from the North Dakota Senate on Feb. 21, 2025

Senate narrowly approves education savings account program after heated debate