North Dakota Senate Bill SB2074

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/25
• Refer: 1/7/25
• Report Pass: 1/10/25
• Engrossed: 1/13/25
• Refer: 2/13/25
• Report Pass: 3/7/25
• Enrolled: 3/14/25
• Passed: 3/18/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend and reenact subsection 1 of section 57-51.1-07.7 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to municipal infrastructure fund reporting requirements.

Summary

SB 2074 amends North Dakota law governing municipal infrastructure fund grants by updating the reporting requirements for cities that receive funding. Under the bill, a city with a population of at least 1,000 that receives a grant must submit a report to the state treasurer by November 30 of each even-numbered year, beginning in 2022, unless an extension of up to 15 days is granted. The treasurer must notify cities of the requirement, determine the report format, and make submitted reports publicly available on the treasurer’s website. The required report must identify the amount of grant money received and spent and describe the infrastructure projects completed in whole or in part with the grant funds. The bill also retains enforcement provisions: a city that fails to file a timely or properly formatted report becomes ineligible for future grants from the fund for two years, and if audits show funds were used inconsistently with statutory requirements, the treasurer must reduce future grants by the amount improperly spent.

Impact

The bill narrows in on accountability and transparency for the municipal infrastructure fund by reinforcing reporting obligations in section 57-51.1-07.7 of the North Dakota Century Code. It affects cities of at least 1,000 population that receive grants from the fund, the state treasurer as administrator and public disclosure authority, and the state auditor or independent accountants as sources of audit findings that can trigger grant reductions. The practical effect is to strengthen oversight of how municipal infrastructure grant dollars are spent and to create clearer consequences for noncompliance.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a wide margin, with only one dissenting vote, suggesting general agreement that the reporting and accountability requirements are reasonable. The absence of committee transcript discussion also suggests there was little public dispute or extended debate recorded around the measure.

Contention

No major points of contention are evident in the available record. The only potential area of concern is the enforcement mechanism, which can suspend a city’s eligibility for future grants for two years or reduce future grants based on audit findings of improper use. However, the strong vote totals indicate that any concerns about administrative burden, local flexibility, or penalty severity did not generate significant opposition in either chamber.