A conference committee on House Bill 1619 met to discuss creating a long‑term care infrastructure revolving loan fund that would provide financing for construction and renovation of long‑term care facilities.

The committee heard differing views about how to structure the fund and how much to appropriate. Senator Davidson said the bill originally proposed a $50 million infrastructure revolving loan fund in the House, and that Senate amendments reduced or reallocated several figures, including lowering a per‑recipient cap and changing loan terms. He also said a line in section 2 was intended only to standardize an existing medical and hospital loan fund after input from the Bank of North Dakota: “The Bank of North Dakota came forward during testimony and suggested ... we standardize that fund too while we are at it,” Senator Davidson said.

Why it matters: lawmakers must choose whether a relatively small permanent fund should pay for a few large new facilities or be spread across many existing nursing homes that lawmakers said need renovations. That decision affects how many projects qualify and whether the program produces immediate upgrades versus backing larger multi‑million‑dollar construction projects.

Senators argued that larger, concentrated loans would enable a handful of major projects to move forward. Senator Thompson said the proposed $10 million loan, at a 2% interest rate, could be decisive for a roughly $40 million project because the low rate helps project cash flow: “This $10,000,000 at 2% is what actually makes this project cash flow,” Senator Thompson said. Proponents in the Senate said they prefer funding a smaller number of “the best of the best” projects so those projects are fully financed rather than spreading smaller amounts across many applicants.

House members urged caution about concentrating the money. Representative Anderson said the House favored using a sizable portion of available dollars for renovations so more of the state’s roughly 140 existing long‑term care facilities could use the funds. “From the House’s perspective, I think a reasonable amount of money put into a renovation pool makes most sense to the larger group, to where we can make the most impact to the currently operating long‑term care facilities,” Representative Anderson said. House members warned that a per‑recipient cap set too high would leave many facilities with only small eligible renovation options.

Committee staff confirmed that section 1 of the bill would establish a new long‑term care infrastructure loan fund and that the item in section 2 addresses an existing medical/hospital loan fund and is separate. Senator Davidson cautioned committee members that the proposed sizes and structure of the fund would shape which projects are eligible: higher per‑project caps favor new construction while a renovation pool would serve many more existing facilities.

No formal votes were taken on final dollar amounts, per‑recipient caps or prioritization criteria during this meeting. Committee members identified three decisions they expect to reconcile: the total dollar amount to appropriate, whether to prioritize renovation versus new construction, and what per‑recipient cap, if any, should apply. The committee agreed to meet again to continue negotiations and to discuss possible tiering and application priorities.

The committee adjourned without adopting a final compromise and scheduled further discussion to be arranged among members.