AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 3 of section 24-02-37 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the special road fund.
Summary
HB 1051 amends North Dakota law governing the special road fund, which is a dedicated account used for access roads and roads within recreational, tourist, and historical areas designated by the special road committee. The bill keeps the basic structure of the fund in place: money from the state highway fund is deposited in an interest-bearing account at the Bank of North Dakota, and 80% of the interest income is transferred into the special road fund for eligible road projects.
The bill also preserves the existing application and oversight process. Political subdivisions, tribal governments, and state agencies may request money from the fund through committee-designated forms, and the committee may require local or other project sponsors to share in project costs as a condition of funding. Unused money that is not obligated by June 30 of each odd-numbered year remains available for two additional years before reverting to the state highway fund.
Impact
HB 1051 affects North Dakota Century Code section 24-02-37 by updating the statutory language governing the special road fund and its administration. It continues the earmarking of interest earnings from the state highway fund for special road projects and maintains the committee-based process for awarding funds to access roads serving recreational, tourist, and historical sites. The bill primarily impacts the state treasurer, the special road committee, and public entities such as political subdivisions, tribal governments, and state agencies that may apply for project funding.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the House overwhelmingly and the Senate with only one dissenting vote, suggesting general agreement that the special road fund should continue operating under the existing framework. The lack of committee transcript discussion also suggests the measure was viewed as routine or technical rather than politically divisive.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention around HB 1051. The only possible point of policy discretion is the committee’s authority to require a political subdivision, tribal government, or state agency to contribute to project costs as a condition of funding, but the voting record does not indicate significant opposition to that approach. The near-unanimous votes in both chambers suggest any concerns were minor and did not materially affect passage.