Senate-win some, lose some

Capitol Views


 

It’s been a couple of busy weeks. Lots of meetings, lots of votes.

In Senate Transportation we’ve heard all of the Senate bills — 16 total. All should be voted upon by the entire Senate before the end of this week.

An update on the primary seat belt bill. The bill failed 23-23 on the Senate floor but was reconsidered the next day when an absent member returned. It then passed 24-23. I voted “no” as the feedback from District 2 was nearly an equal percentage of for and against. It now goes to the House.

On the increased registration fees for electric vehicles and hybrids, the Senate passed the bill after reducing the fees to reflect only the loss of revenue generated by the state gasoline tax. I voted “yes”on that one as I feel those who drive on our roads should contribute toward the construction and upkeep.

Our committee gave a “Do Pass” recommendation to SB 2244, which will, if passed by both houses, increase drivers licenses fees. For an ordinary drivers license the fee will go from $15 to $30. It’s a six year license, so that amounts to five bucks a year for the privilege to drive. The Drivers License Division doesn’t collect enough fees to pay for its operations, so dollars are taken out of other areas (road maintenance, construction, etc.) to make up the difference. This increase would get them to a “break even” point. Current fees have not been changed since 1987 (32 years). While I’m generally opposed to increases in taxes or fees, I did vote “yes” in committee on this one.

The House defeated by a vote of 6-85 the bill to pay legislators $34 per day for meals. Had it gotten to the Senate, I’d have voted “no” as I have to eat whether I’m in Tioga or in Bismarck and shouldn’t get paid extra just because I’m a legislator.

SB 2315 deals with criminal trespass, hunting on private land, and the posting of land. It should get out of Agriculture Committee this week. The entire Senate will vote on it shortly thereafter. It’s a “hot button” topic and I’ve received a ton of e-mails on that one—mostly from out-of-district and out-of-state. The ones from District 2 have been overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, only one asking me to vote “no.”

In Education Committee the two bills I sponsored on school construction (SB 2161) and on changes in the subtraction of in-lieu-of revenue (SB 2160) are coming out of committee with a 6-1 “Do Not Pass”recommendation. I gave an impassioned plea on the first one for school construction grants in districts (like Williston #1) experiencing significant enrollment increases year after year. I did the same on the second bill with regard to having more oil and gas dollars come back to school districts. Those dollars could be used for maintenance of school buildings, for school construction, etc. thereby providing tax relief for property owners. I was the only vote in favor of the bills.

On a positive note, I firmly believe the discussions during the past year on those bills’ provisions have laid the groundwork for the education committees to look favorably at ways to accomplish some of the above. One House bill is very close to SB 2160 but only for Sinking and Interest levies (those are used to pay for school construction indebtedness).

SB 2265 is the school funding bill. It includes 2 percent increases in per pupil aid for each year of the biennium, raising state and local funding level from $9,646 per weighted student to $9,839 (2019-20) and $10,036 (2020- 21).

However, we have a number of school districts in the state that are “not on formula.” The current funding formula gives them a “transition minimum” payment, resulting in more dollars per student than those “on formula.” The formula caps those schools at 108 percent of baseline funding. As a result, they will not get those 2 percent increases. In a further attempt to get schools “on formula,” an additional 5 percent reduction in those payments will take place the second year of the biennium. Nearly 80 schools in North Dakota are currently receiving transition minimum payments.

SB 2265 provides for “on time” funding in the second year of the biennium. That provision will allow schools with a fall enrollment greater than last spring’s membership to get paid for those students in the current year rather than the next school year. Since that amounts to about $10,000 per student, that should be helpful.

Feel free to contact me at drust@nd.gov with your thoughts and suggestions. Always good to hear from folks back home!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.