[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6346540,"mediaKeyId","2246705-5fd5277b46512e9b90bc42aff5af22aa","parentId",2246705,"title","Appropriations committee debates large school‑construction loan proposals and a $25 million higher‑education auxiliary loan request","audioSeconds",507,"startMs",3220000,"endMs",2713000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2246705-5fd5277b46512e9b90bc42aff5af22aa&start=3220&end=2713","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2246705-5fd5277b46512e9b90bc42aff5af22aa/thumbnail_3220000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6346540/North-Dakota/Appropriations-committee-debates-large-schoolconstruction-loan-proposals-and-a-25-million-highereducation-auxiliary-loan-request","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6346540-71a6e9851ddd2bbbf66eb607cfffe9f3/orig.mp4?Expires=1776169766&Signature=QBCReimF7fO57jPNE5H4HBALJlZOzmjb~wJlyPbD99Q4K99xTb10TxqUXbiM9k50zLQDkgQHOElteKYv6308Oq7Tizy1G6qZ-wsWTv51aTioZUaHYjFHAkoytw85Dp1Fgy1dW-8F8H9oCXU6l1hNTCv2AmJ8p2Kv-i6Y2mxtPkuz0lzxda6v~TO53B9c-QZpnauRSosKdzA7sAT88y7K5P38BOYDUEymQm4NtWt4oh4Ks1MC8yCoHyjHQJ0Gycn1maavWQJuZBjdO3RPQVlhPfH7HkhAJpkwlUopcSEAT8wwDtqeag5IC7HU9UbMFtmtxDlic2yVYhoOwusA7~QPYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Appropriations, ND","date","2025-02-06T00:00:00Z","article","Committee members opened a long policy discussion about capital funding for K–12 schools and for higher‑education auxiliary projects.

K–12: House Bill 1163 (Legacy Fund stream for school construction)
Representative Pat Heinert presented House Bill 1163 as a request to create a $1 billion loan stream from the Legacy Fund for K–12 construction loans. Under the bill’s language the fund would make loans of up to $10 million per district (scaled by enrollment), for projects with at least $1 million cost and an expected useful life of 30 years. Heinert said the proposal is intended to increase available low‑interest financing for school construction and to allow school districts to refinance existing debt at a lower rate; under the bill the interest rate would not exceed 1% per year and loan terms would be up to 20 years.

Members raised multiple concerns: the fiscal impact on the Legacy Fund principal and earnings over a 20‑year horizon; whether the Common Schools Trust Fund or Bank of North Dakota programs (which already make school loans) were better sources; and the long‑range cost of moving a large amount of Legacy principal into loans. Representative Kevin C. (committee floor discussion) estimated a long‑term gross cost if principal were borrowed; Representative Kevin argued the bill would more than double nominal cost over 20 years when compared with lost earnings on the Legacy corpus. Other members urged deeper study and cross‑agency analysis rather than an immediate large principal transfer.

Higher‑education auxiliary loan request: House Bill 1128
Representative Heinert also outlined House Bill 1128, a $25 million one‑time general‑fund appropriation to create a revolving loan fund for auxiliary enterprise infrastructure projects on university campuses (student housing, dining facilities, and centralized campus heating). The proposed program would limit loans to $10 million per campus at an interest rate of 3.5% and a 20‑year term.

Testimony and debate focused on who would benefit and whether the one‑time infusion would be effective. Supporters said the program would lower borrowing costs on dorm and dining projects and help campuses keep pace with student expectations; opponents and several members said the fund’s size would cover only a handful of projects and would likely not help smaller institutions that are already stretched. Members also asked whether the Bank of North Dakota or existing higher‑education budgeting could better address the need. Representative Calvin Hullitt of the Bank of North Dakota offered to return with a presentation on the existing school construction revolving loan fund and how projects in the queue compare with available cash.

Why it matters
Lawmakers noted that capital financing affects long‑term property tax burdens in local communities, and that the sources used (Legacy Fund principal vs. Common Schools Trust Fund or other state resources) have very different fiscal profiles and constitutional implications. Members repeatedly urged a broader policy discussion tying the bills to a statewide construction strategy and to the existing revolving programs that are already funded but under strain.

Next steps
Committee members signaled they would carry the questions into the budget and higher‑education deliberations in the second half of the session; sponsors and fiscal staff agreed to follow up with more detailed fiscal modeling and with Bank of North Dakota and Department of Public Instruction data about projects in the current pipeline.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Appropriations Feb 6, 2025\t","oneSentenceSummary","Appropriations members debated two separate proposals to expand low‑interest construction financing: a proposed $1 billion Legacy Fund stream for K–12 school construction loans and a $25 million one‑time general‑fund seed for a university auxiliary infrastructure revolving loan fund.","taxTitle","Appropriations, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28310,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6346545,"House bill would use leftover school-meal money to pay districts' unpaid lunch debt",984,664000,1648000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2246705-5fd5277b46512e9b90bc42aff5af22aa&start=664&end=1648","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2246705-5fd5277b46512e9b90bc42aff5af22aa/thumbnail_664000.jpg","/articles/6346545/North-Dakota/House-bill-would-use-leftover-school-meal-money-to-pay-districts-unpaid-lunch-debt","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6346545-a3b8ec35c068c1b5c4dbcdfe721cd9aa/orig.mp4?Expires=1776169766&Signature=A1MpPxNa7Jjo7hPorUlfrZ5JOz78ohw3-518KyikqePq3uw5-NrLrs0gnpGsvN3kEMCOS4Iv0g51mOP-rgNV38ZhTWiym8xxIYl1uNXjEPaklFSjP~zymQTz7ZfJBod~vFtFnCZzxOdruRCVeLq~KiK0-O~OFriVGlcE0zskbjgIx0ow5Cdiy-bX0B8GlAAfVbFKT-IpPHqEVI5DNYAYoElDGmud1RAcyrTDmvNXkzJK4gQal24CYv9Buj3Z-xG5H1hK~x5UOM4S8heIkeSl-RGMQcLSQt4CG6m6c9UYC8jFObVjzJ043sFd0ELv8Va8OpKTyZqmKa-oEfRG6AuMOA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Appropriations members spent more than an hour Wednesday debating House Bill 1100, a re-referral from Representative Pat Heinert that would direct any unspent portion of a $6 million state appropriation for expanded school meal eligibility toward unpaid school meal debt. Heinert told the committee the original appropriation was intended to expand eligibility and that “we have people who aren't paying for their meals” and that what remains of the appropriation should be used to “divide that up between the schools that had…school lunch debt.”

The bill would rely on the balance remaining at the end of the fiscal cycle; Representative Heinert said the committee expects roughly $2 million to $2.2 million could remain. Department of Public Instruction child nutrition director Lynelle Johnson told members the state’s school-meal population numbers and reimbursement context. “Statewide there’s about 31,000 students that qualify for free, about 7,700 students that qualify for reduced and around currently 1,800 students that qualify for the state 200,” Johnson said, adding there are “about 125,000 students that participate” in the National School Lunch Program and “193 schools that participate in NSLP in North Dakota.”

Why it matters: Committee members debated whether using leftover state funds to pay districts’ meal debt is appropriate and whether it creates an incentive for families not to pay. Opponents argued the bill would relieve families of responsibility and reduce districts’ incentive to collect, while supporters and some district representatives pointed to rising lunch debt since the pandemic and to testimony showing large local debts in some districts.

Key points of discussion
- Eligibility and program rules: Witnesses and members discussed federal and state eligibility tiers, including the state-expanded “200% of poverty” category that was created previously. Johnson said students in the state 200 category are part of a state eligibility expansion and that those counts are not reported to the federal government for Title I census eligibility. “Those state 200 numbers…do not qualify for anything federal. They don't use them to use for Title,” Johnson said.
- Source and scale of unpaid debt: Members pressed for numbers. Johnson gave statewide counts (see above). Members shared district-level figures in committee comment: Grand Forks reported roughly $69,223 current debt after donations, while West Fargo reported debt on the order of the hundreds of thousands (district-supplied figures were circulated in committee testimony).
- Incentives and collection: Several members, including Representatives Steeman and Lausser, warned that using state funds to erase unpaid meal debt could encourage nonpayment. Representative Munson and others asked whether districts fully pursue collection options (for example, contacting parents, donation drives, foundation support or limited administrative remedies). Johnson confirmed schools may administratively complete applications in narrowly authorized circumstances for students the school determines qualify.

Amendment and limit requested in committee discussion
Committee members pressed to limit any repayment to recent debt tied to the current biennium rather than allowing the appropriation to be applied to long-accumulated balances. During debate members proposed and the committee adopted an amendment to limit application to debt incurred within the current 2023–25 biennium (the amendment text limits covered debt to that period). That change was discussed as a way to limit ongoing moral‑hazard concerns while directing one-time leftover funds at debt most directly tied to the post‑pandemic period.

Outcome and next steps
The committee debated motions later in the session. Members raised both administrative and policy concerns and discussed alternatives (for example, expanded universal meal proposals and pending ESA language that could affect school meal funding). As of the end of the transcript excerpt the bill had been debated and the committee considered motions; committee action and final disposition were recorded later in the hearing record.

Ending
Members left the core policy questions unresolved: whether a targeted one‑time use of carryover funds for recent meal debt best balances the schools’ fiscal stress and personal responsibility concerns, and whether a broader policy (universal meals, ESA allowances for meals) would be a preferable, more durable solution.","House Appropriations members debated a proposal to use unspent money from last session’s $6 million school‑meal appropriation to cover unpaid student meal debt at districts across the state.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6346536,"At a glance: Appropriations committee outcomes and recorded votes from the session",190,9903000,10093000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2246705-5fd5277b46512e9b90bc42aff5af22aa&start=9903&end=10093","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2246705-5fd5277b46512e9b90bc42aff5af22aa/thumbnail_9903000.jpg","/articles/6346536/North-Dakota/At-a-glance-Appropriations-committee-outcomes-and-recorded-votes-from-the-session","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6346536-9625fb8298e073f1022cba183c0b46b2/orig.mp4?Expires=1776169766&Signature=kPy6e5Gkic5-vCfeZNuK41y7arbQj~zYn-j~yYdKmgMBpMCCGZ664EJQ~s1MjJDc0d3azSrLHmq1y0wDzybcnRGBwQSW5wr9LyDcftWIntoo0-wwkh4bZl5h9XGstIqsczFB6bY~VD2plomQqsus6ZehvstINRnRFKW5NLqwxAxVLOp14qXWA7rqPEkhHdA1yUFzfITNXbMkNNRBR3gPgfvsuEcBMBaU61PaYLFf3VF10TVbtWyr9uozY6TNxJ3WS2t9mps4RnRIx355We9cs3rkEp1w~1RsthKRuA0CjYKqsr267mXjE7-ROuAwSVaik8daci6LuXKWR1VRz4hEiQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","This Appropriations Committee meeting produced a number of formal committee actions. Below are items and the committee’s recorded outcomes as shown in the hearing transcript.

• House Bill 10 66 (Senior Community Service Employment Program compensation rate)
- Action: Committee recorded a due‑pass motion and roll call.
- Motion mover: Representative Murphy (moved due pass); Representative Pyle seconded.
- Vote (recorded): 21 yes, 0 no, 2 absent (documented in the hearing record).
- Outcome: Due pass; Representative Holly named as carrier.

• House Bill 12 21 (workforce education / innovation funds; E&E referral)
- Action: Committee recorded a do‑not‑pass recommendation from E&E and then a full appropriations do‑not‑pass vote and unanimous consent to place on the consent calendar.
- Motion mover (appropriations action): Representative Louser moved do‑not‑pass; later Representative Lausser moved to place the bill on the consent calendar.
- Vote (do‑not‑pass): recorded as unanimous in appropriations (22 yes, 0 no, 1 absent); committee later placed the item on the consent calendar.
- Outcome: Do‑not‑pass on the bill; placed on the committee’s consent calendar in case of later pull.

• House Bill 10 25 (advanced nuclear energy study)
- Action: Committee voted a due‑pass on the amended bill after reconsideration of prior action.
- Vote (recorded): 16 yes, 6 no, 1 absent (recorded during roll call in the transcript).
- Outcome: Due pass as amended; sponsor and carriers noted for follow‑up.

• House Bill 11 28 (higher‑education auxiliary enterprise infrastructure revolving loan fund; $25M request)
- Action: The bill received committee debate; sponsor later moved a do‑not‑pass and the committee placed the do‑not‑pass on the consent calendar.
- Vote (recorded): 22 yes, 0 no, 1 absent (do‑not‑pass recorded; bill placed on consent calendar for the tenth order).
- Outcome: Do‑not‑pass recorded and placed on consent calendar (committee discussion indicated sponsors would pursue the funding vehicle in higher‑education budget deliberations if warranted).

Notes on procedure and sources: The tallies above reflect roll‑call counts read into the record during the hearing. For clarity, the transcript records motion makers and seconds when given; where a motion maker was not explicitly named in the hearing text the committee roll call and chair’s announcements are the source for outcome counts. Individual bills include follow‑up items (agency presentations requested, changes in scope or amendments) that the committee asked staff and agencies to deliver for further appropriations‑phase work.","Summary of major committee votes and formal actions recorded during the meeting (items referred to committee work, do‑pass/do‑not‑pass motions and consent‑calendar placements).","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Appropriations committee debates large school‑construction loan proposals and a $25 million higher‑education auxiliary loan request

House bill would use leftover school-meal money to pay districts' unpaid lunch debt

At a glance: Appropriations committee outcomes and recorded votes from the session