The Senate Transportation Committee held an extended hearing on House Bill 1444 after residents, local officials and company representatives described a dispute over a stretch of township road near Ellendale in Dickey County.

Representative Mike Brandenburg (District 28) told the committee the bill is intended to clarify Century Code so a county may formally assume a township road and apply for state or federal funds to rebuild a mile‑and‑a‑half stretch that currently carries large volumes of construction traffic for Applied Digital’s data‑center project. "This is about safety," Representative Brandenburg said, noting heavy truck volumes and an expected increase in daily traffic as the facility grows.

Nick Phillips, executive vice president for external affairs at Applied Digital, described the company’s investment and traffic impacts. Phillips said the Ellendale campus sits on roughly 320 acres, that the company has built multiple buildings and that construction and employee vehicle volumes have been large (he estimated roughly 400 trucks and 400 passenger vehicles per day at peaks, with those figures expected to increase). Phillips said Applied Digital spent more than $400,000 improving and maintaining the township road and paid more than $300,000 in load‑pass permit fees to the township. He told the committee the planned DOT project would add deceleration and acceleration lanes and cost approximately $6 million; Applied Digital agreed to pay about half and sought $3 million in DOT funding.

Township representatives contested that account. Joel Hammer, township chairman, said townships already cooperate and warned that changing statute to address 1 local dispute would affect every township in the state. "Safety is not who owns the road," Hammer told the committee, urging the legislature not to alter Century Code for a single road. He said the township allowed overweight permits during construction and that the company could have avoided damage by obeying posted load limits. Hammer and other township speakers said they had offered cooperation but that proposals and memoranda were rushed and that a perceived loss of local control alarmed residents.

Committee members asked DOT and legal staff about existing law. Representatives and DOT staff cited Century Code sections addressing county designation of roads and noted ambiguity in the current language for township‑county transfers. Witnesses described limited options for townships to apply directly for certain DOT programs and noted the application process normally runs through counties.

Several committee members expressed sympathy for safety concerns and economic development, but also acknowledged township frustration. Representative Brandenburg and Applied Digital supporters argued the bill simply clarifies an existing process and adds a public‑hearing step; Township speakers said the county’s vote to consider acquisition was in minutes but the township remains opposed.

The hearing closed with no committee vote recorded at the session.