A BILL for an Act to amend and reenact subsection 5 of section 10-30.5-02, sections 11-11.1-01, 11-11.1-01.1, 11-11.1-02, 11-11.1-03, 11-11.1-04, subdivision h of subsection 1 of section 40-01.1-04, subsection 14 of section 57-15-06.7, and section 57-15-61 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to changing the name of county job development authorities to economic development authorities.
HB 1104 is a technical and policy update that renames “job development authorities” as “economic development authorities” throughout the North Dakota Century Code. The bill makes conforming changes across multiple sections governing county and joint county development authorities, their boards, their powers, levy authority, reporting requirements, and related economic growth district provisions. It also updates references in other statutes so that county economic development tools remain consistent with the new terminology.
Substantively, the bill preserves and clarifies the existing framework for county economic development authorities. These entities would continue to be created by county commissioners, governed by appointed boards, and authorized to promote employment, business development, and tourism. The bill retains authority for tax levies, financial reporting, contracting with active economic development organizations, and use of funds for loans, grants, guarantees, equity positions, and other financing mechanisms. It also keeps the provision allowing development funds to support early childhood facilities, while updating the language to reflect the renamed authorities.
The bill’s impact on state law is primarily to modernize terminology and align multiple statutes with the broader concept of economic development rather than job development. It affects county government structure, local tax levy provisions, economic growth district administration, and the use of development funds for early childhood facilities and business development. No major substantive policy change appears to be intended beyond the name change and related conforming edits, but the bill would have required counties and related entities to update references in ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and administrative materials.
General sentiment around the bill appears neutral to favorable based on its technical nature, but the available record is limited. There are no committee transcripts or recorded votes in the provided materials, and the bill was ultimately withdrawn on January 10, 2025. That suggests the proposal did not advance to a final policy decision, and there is no evidence in the record of significant public controversy or organized opposition.
The main point of possible contention is the scope of the terminology change and whether it was merely cosmetic or part of a broader effort to reframe county development authorities. Because the bill also touches levy authority, board composition, and economic growth district provisions, some stakeholders could have been attentive to whether any conforming edits might affect local control, taxation, or governance. However, the text itself does not indicate a substantive restructuring of authority powers or funding mechanisms.
HB 1104 would amend several chapters of the North Dakota Century Code to replace references to county “job development authorities” with “economic development authorities,” while making conforming changes to related provisions on board composition, levy authority, financial reporting, economic growth districts, and development funding. It would affect county commissioners, county auditors and treasurers, local development authorities, and entities receiving development financing, but it does not appear to materially change the underlying powers or funding structure of those authorities.
The available record suggests a largely neutral, technical bill with no documented floor or committee debate and no recorded votes. Because the bill was withdrawn before enactment, there is no clear evidence of strong support or opposition in the provided materials. The absence of controversy in the record is consistent with a terminology-and-conforming-amendments bill rather than a major policy overhaul.
Any contention would likely have centered on whether the bill was purely a name change or whether its conforming amendments could affect county governance, tax levies, or local economic development authority structures. Stakeholders concerned about local taxing power, board appointments, or the relationship between counties and active economic development organizations might have scrutinized the bill, but the provided record does not identify any specific opponents, amendments, or disputed provisions.