A BILL for an Act to provide an appropriation for defraying the expenses of the securities department; and to amend and reenact subsection 8 of section 10-04-10 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to fees charged by the securities department.
HB1011 is an appropriations and fee-adjustment bill for the North Dakota Securities Department for the 2025-2027 biennium. It provides a special-funds appropriation of $3,388,330, including funding for salaries and wages, a new-and-vacant FTE pool, and operating expenses, while maintaining 10.00 full-time equivalent positions. The bill also directs that money in the new-and-vacant FTE pool cannot be spent directly, but may be transferred to salaries and wages through the Office of Management and Budget under procedures established in House Bill 1015.
In addition to the agency appropriation, the bill amends North Dakota Century Code section 10-04-10 to increase securities-related registration and renewal fees. The fee for broker-dealers would rise from $200 to $240, agents from $60 to $75, investment advisers and federal covered advisers from $100 to $120, and investment adviser representatives from $50 to $60. These changes would affect regulated financial industry participants who register with the Securities Department and pay annual renewal fees.
The bill’s impact on state law is limited but direct: it changes the statutory fee schedule for securities registrations and renewals and authorizes the department’s biennial operating budget from special funds. It does not create a new regulatory program, but it does increase the revenue collected from broker-dealers, agents, investment advisers, and related representatives, while also setting budget authority for the department’s staffing and operations.
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, but the bill ultimately failed on April 16, 2025. Because it was introduced by the Appropriations Committee and contained both agency funding and fee increases, the measure appears to have been a routine budget-and-revenue bill rather than a highly controversial policy proposal. The failure suggests the proposal did not secure enough support to advance, though the specific reasons are not documented in the provided materials.
No explicit points of contention are recorded in the transcript materials provided. Based on the bill text, any disagreement would likely have centered on whether to raise securities registration fees and on the size and structure of the department’s appropriation, including the new-and-vacant FTE pool and the use of special funds.
HB1011 would have increased the Securities Department’s special-funds appropriation for the 2025-2027 biennium and amended the statutory fee schedule in section 10-04-10 of the North Dakota Century Code. The bill raises registration and renewal fees for broker-dealers, agents, investment advisers, federal covered advisers, and investment adviser representatives, thereby increasing costs for regulated financial services firms and individuals. It also preserves the department’s staffing level at 10 FTE and restricts direct spending from the new-and-vacant FTE pool, requiring transfers through the Office of Management and Budget under HB1015 procedures.
The bill appears to have been a standard appropriations measure with no recorded floor or committee debate in the provided materials. Its introduction by the Appropriations Committee suggests institutional support for funding the Securities Department and updating fee levels, but the bill ultimately failed, indicating that it did not achieve sufficient legislative backing. Because no vote tally or transcript is provided, the overall sentiment can only be characterized as neutral-to-mixed, with the outcome showing limited support or unresolved concerns.
No specific contention is documented in the provided transcripts or votes. The likely points of debate, based on the bill text, would have been the fee increases imposed on broker-dealers, agents, investment advisers, and investment adviser representatives, as well as the size and structure of the department’s appropriation and the handling of the new-and-vacant FTE pool. Any opposition would most likely have come from legislators concerned about higher costs for the securities industry or about agency spending levels, while supporters would have emphasized funding the department’s operations and maintaining regulatory capacity.