North Dakota Senate Bill SB2135

North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/7/25
• Refer: 1/7/25
• Report Pass: 1/20/25
• Engrossed: 1/22/25
• 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 2 of section 18-04-05 and section 18-05.1-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the firefighters death benefits fund.

Summary

SB 2135 amends North Dakota law governing the firefighters death benefits fund. The bill increases the amount the insurance commissioner may transfer into the fund each biennium from up to $50,000 to up to $125,000, as needed, for distribution under the firefighters death benefit program. It also increases the payment made to a deceased firefighter’s survivor from $10,000 to $25,000, upon receipt of a request and proof of a line-of-duty death from the appropriate fire chief or designee. The bill applies to survivors of firefighters from city fire departments, rural fire departments, and rural fire protection districts.

Impact

The bill directly amends sections 18-04-05 and 18-05.1-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, expanding the state’s financial commitment to the firefighters death benefits fund and increasing the statutory survivor benefit. Its practical effect is to raise the maximum biennial funding available for these death benefits and to provide a larger lump-sum payment to eligible survivors after a line-of-duty death is verified.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Senate 47-0 and the House 93-0, with only one House member absent, indicating unanimous support among those voting. No committee transcripts were provided, and the vote totals suggest strong bipartisan agreement on increasing benefits for firefighters’ survivors.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The only policy choice reflected in the bill is the size of the increase in both the fund transfer cap and the survivor payment, but the unanimous votes suggest no recorded opposition. Any discussion would likely have centered on the adequacy of the benefit amount and the fiscal impact on the fund, but no specific objections or competing viewpoints are documented in the materials provided.