[{"_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",6100932,"mediaKeyId","2810849-0447af5dc61260330d281784945f88d7","parentId",2810849,"title","Committee reviews proposed rural catalyst grant program, asks edits and delays action until next week","audioSeconds",2358,"startMs",2269000,"endMs",4627000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2810849-0447af5dc61260330d281784945f88d7&start=2269&end=4627","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2810849-0447af5dc61260330d281784945f88d7/thumbnail_2269000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6100932/North-Dakota/Committee-reviews-proposed-rural-catalyst-grant-program-asks-edits-and-delays-action-until-next-week","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100932-bc66791e086c41990a7dcf8201dce800/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065397&Signature=RYlNIzDadorWDmJeGVMsQly~KRUg2gs1JhF2ddagGS2BHnUgMEO059LX5zYJotnfGwcvIxW1Xdw6MYw0-pSX~QkpbMqDjn5hjLjjkbofLhy13cEY-7rYhJHm~Hl2AHksyFbJI50AES7XU~~AJnDfrNk3PwC2gmBWnTxGhfVNve5pQPkxodlN0vTxqRMLlmgVMWTxXUK3n0L6G4Xtt7mUTkvpeK3v0L~y6VYDmSOh603~ndLy13gl~hlJdXTqn1EJboqd92YYB~H6VS~ISLjMU95fu8mTXu9m1Ok9DGNVw9~v1SdUPSKuHMIgmtNX8dg6qzhIaz1A1cRiKp6AO-MIug__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota Legislature","date","2025-03-28T00:00:00Z","article","Senate Bill 23‑90 (referred to as 2,390 during the hearing) — a proposal to create a Rural Catalyst Grant program and a Rural Catalyst Committee — was discussed in detail but not acted on. Committee members reviewed amendments proposed by Representative Moshenbacher, debated eligible population thresholds and administrative expense limits, and set the bill aside to allow redrafting and review; the committee will revisit the bill next Thursday.

Representative Moshenbacher described the draft amendments as focusing the program on smaller communities, tightening eligibility, and adding a dollar‑for‑dollar local match requirement in parts of the proposal. Moshenbacher said he reduced the population threshold in the draft from 8,500 to 4,500 to prioritize the very smallest communities and removed arts and culture as an eligible use in some sections to concentrate resources on projects “critical to the vitality of rural communities,” such as grocery stores and medical facilities.

Committee members raised several implementation questions: whether governor or commissioner appointees should be designated members or their designees; whether administrative and travel/per diem expenses should be capped (a hard cap of 10% was proposed analogous to language discussed for another bill); how to avoid duplication with other state programs (Operation Prairie Dog, renaissance zones) and whether the bill’s language duplicated expense provisions across sections. Matt Purdue, who identified himself as representing a stakeholder organization in the room, explained the bill’s intent to support quality‑of‑life and main‑street projects and said the Rural Catalyst program is meant to complement, not duplicate, existing programs.

Members suggested several drafting changes: clarifying the population data source (census or current estimates), tightening who pays committee member per diem, and consolidating or removing duplicate expense language. Representative Warrie and others urged cleaning the expense language and working with staff. The chair proposed putting the bill aside until Thursday to allow the sponsor and legislative staff to produce cleaned amendment language; the committee agreed and did not take a formal vote on the bill at the hearing. Senate Bill 20‑69 was also held until Thursday.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Political Subdivisions Mar 28, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Committee members discussed Senate Bill 23‑90 (referred to as 2,390 in transcript) to create a Rural Catalyst Grant and a Rural Catalyst Committee, debated eligibility thresholds, match requirements and administrative expense limits, and decided to set the bill aside for further drafting and return next Thursday.","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},6100936,"Panel advances amended rural community endowment bill to appropriations after changing match and language",956,1203000,2159000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2810849-0447af5dc61260330d281784945f88d7&start=1203&end=2159","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2810849-0447af5dc61260330d281784945f88d7/thumbnail_1203000.jpg","/articles/6100936/North-Dakota/Panel-advances-amended-rural-community-endowment-bill-to-appropriations-after-changing-match-and-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100936-6605044a969b2523398f9315f1b473c4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065397&Signature=b8pxCDOL~8Aih0nK4V2gOiBaYOYDHcgPJUaKCTewEq~n6XZ311LjXLRTgr5d85Xb-G0aO2u2~BpXaeQJtQYgeftEzE5znYx99oxDO7qn6S6PveTLssPut9cuCn9oqlKur6ktfupyaQ7vwz8ptb-O4ZfkRY64OA4hYhIEEunJl97ENMFrR3c8CS0bYTZeMvW0e-8UxNNzOMeRwbnFzQ73zRwUTqJIuFvo8eXJ3EU2kSxMNNrr9lk198577urBIjEOS8q3xmwGfC9pL11C7Rn06HvHqOHqR~scRIhPXAHHX3Yd64beyTyhz-8M8kTJJsbDAVK~YMtKN99nensQEmHnHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Political Subdivisions Committee voted to pass amended Senate Bill 20‑97 and re‑refer it to the Appropriations Committee. The bill establishes a rural community endowment with a principal threshold before distributions may be expended.

Representative Moshenbacher explained the amendment’s central feature: the department may not expend monies from the rural community endowment fund until the principal reaches at least $10 million, of which at least $5 million must be derived from gifts, donations, bequests or similar private sources. Moshenbacher said the provision is intended to leverage private investment and create a perpetual endowment that can support rural communities over time.

The committee considered and amended language that initially used the phrase “non state” funding; members debated whether that phrase might be ambiguous and ultimately deleted it on a committee amendment. Committee members also discussed whether the $5 million state investment should remain in the bill; several members said appropriations could adjust funding levels later but recommended keeping a policy signal of $5 million in place. The amendment to delete the words “from non state” on page 2, line 2 passed on a roll call and the committee then moved the amended bill; the final motion to pass the amended bill and re‑refer to appropriations passed 7 yeas, 2 nays, 4 absent, not voting. Representative Moshenbacher volunteered to carry the bill.

During discussion, members asked about allowable sources for the private match and whether local economic development councils could contribute. Representative Moshenbacher said the intent was not to include additional state appropriations as the private match; the language was intended to allow private, local, or other non‑appropriated contributions. Members also raised fiscal concerns about committing $5 million in state investment and noted the bill will proceed through Appropriations, which could alter funding amounts.

The amendment text also changed the statute’s phrasing in places (for example, replacing certain categorical uses of “social and cultural events” and refining the definition of eligible small businesses) to focus the endowment on projects “critical to the vitality of rural communities.” No appropriation amount was finally altered by the committee; fiscal allocation remains subject to the Appropriations Committee’s review.","The committee amended and advanced Senate Bill 20‑97, creating a rural community endowment that would not be spent until the fund principal reaches $10 million, at least $5 million of which must be from non-appropriated gifts/donations; committee voted to pass the bill as amended and refer it to Appropriations.",{"_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},6100941,"Committee recommends 'do not pass' on bill to transfer Edmore school and $500,000 to city",1036,74000,1110000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2810849-0447af5dc61260330d281784945f88d7&start=74&end=1110","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2810849-0447af5dc61260330d281784945f88d7/thumbnail_74000.jpg","/articles/6100941/North-Dakota/Committee-recommends-do-not-pass-on-bill-to-transfer-Edmore-school-and-500000-to-city","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6100941-57642b6e3f70a0d340a83d884053678f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771065397&Signature=UxcatRqUPZJY5CE732oaCAnYZ7QELogRxsV5VoiYyBNu4mtZQfOV0HZTYNwQN6dvyX7EW1on98uHCAKiqqA3J0xvViY4bl004ERSFwUXX0humlBoBGRENYfuytMEzyopaXI2FXMRHI41HIXOw1gl8RFzP~U1kBYsK~0UnX52naC9vTj3ndTK46wWyGAh38Ka8Cp32v4GVM95FNz4~83LTJ3hZ0kM64-ckXAfGo1rpS87NRMJrtqUa20EWSADIsvvARUnL4t-djlQgvCc8j6UfU8oC7lAjEOY76hCtIxY6j9sH8naIEByutnd3YN7g-ppi4LgV9Tg0F6U6APsPrnTrA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Political Subdivisions Committee voted to recommend a do-not-pass on Senate Bill 2,158, the bill that would allow a school district to transfer the Edmore school building and $500,000 in unobligated funds to the City of Edmore.

Committee members said the measure raises questions about precedent, the appropriate recipient of leftover school district funds and whether the local community has a sustainable plan to maintain the building. Representative Clameen moved the do-not-pass motion and Representative Fegley seconded; the motion carried on a roll call, 7 yeas, 2 nays, 4 absent, not voting.

The bill would have given a school board an option to turn over an unused school building and an associated cash balance to a municipal government. Representative Bosley said he had “kind of went back and forth on this bill” after hearing testimony and noted the district’s large geographic area and that some landowners live far from the school. Bosley said at least one option is for “any of the excess dollars that the district has [to] just go back to a distribution to all land owners within that district.”

Representative Haddleston said he saw the Edmore facility as an asset that could serve local activities and argued it would be “a real shame to let that go and potentially crumble into… bricks,” and he favored directing the money to the city for building maintenance. Representative Warrie echoed support for a city-directed maintenance use, citing testimony from a local farmer who felt he had been overcharged under the school district in past years.

Other members pushed back on the bill’s statewide wording. Representative Clameen and Representative Alinsky warned that the bill’s current text did not mention Edmore by name and would create a statutory option that applies statewide; Clameen said that could have unintended consequences in future dissolutions of other districts. Representative Killeen and others suggested a smaller dollar transfer or tying the transfer to a percentage of remaining funds rather than a fixed $500,000.

Representative Hosley asked whether ownership of the building had already been conveyed to the city; the committee record did not resolve that question during discussion. Several members also said testimony did not show a clear, long-term plan to sustain the facility if the transfer occurred.

With the committee recommendation recorded, Representative Fegley agreed to carry the bill. The committee clerk recorded the do-not-pass recommendation as the committee’s formal action.

The committee did not amend statutory language at the meeting. Members debated options for limiting transfers (a lower fixed amount or a share of unobligated funds) and emphasized the need to clarify ownership and long-term stewardship before creating a general statutory option.","The Political Subdivisions Committee voted to recommend 'do not pass' on Senate Bill 2,158, which would allow transfer of the Edmore school facility and a $500,000 balance to the City of Edmore. Committee members voiced concerns about precedent, fairness to distant landowners, and long-term plans for building upkeep.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee reviews proposed rural catalyst grant program, asks edits and delays action until next week

Panel advances amended rural community endowment bill to appropriations after changing match and language

Committee recommends 'do not pass' on bill to transfer Edmore school and $500,000 to city