Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Districts Enterprise Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee discusses guardrails for enterprise fund projects and public input; bill set aside for amendments
Summary
Representative Doctor introduced House Bill 1389, describing the need to add guardrails and a public-input process for a proposed enterprise fund that would operate similarly to special assessment districts. Committee members discussed protecting businesses and ensuring public input; the bill was set aside to allow counsel-drafted amendments.
Chairman Hedlund called up House Bill 1389, introduced by Representative Doctor. Doctor said he was working with Representative Porter on the bill and that Porter would propose amendments addressing concerns raised by committee members.
Representative Porter said the measure should mirror existing "citizen guardrails on assessment districts," including a public-input process for projects and protections for the business community. Porter said special-assessment districts currently charge commercial property owners at a rate of two times while residential property pays at a rate of one; he argued a similar ratio should be required for any enterprise fund mechanism to prevent disproportionate burdens on businesses: "If you don't have that guardrail in place for the business and the for the business community, they could they could set the rate at 10 times for the commercial property and and a half for the residential. So I think that that ratio that currently exists inside of those assessment districts needs to be another guardrail, for this kind of basically an enterprise fund that we're allowing them to use."
Representative Foss asked what happens if a project is protested after the funds have been expended. Representative Porter described the typical process for improvements: an area map, scope of work (chip seal, milling, underground utility work, drain tile, sewer or water updates) and identification of who pays. He gave an example from North Bismarck where a neighborhood objected to a milling-only approach that would not fix underlying water problems; residents insisted on addressing the underground cause to avoid repeated repaving.
Chairman Hedlund said the committee would "set this bill aside" and hoped the authors could provide amendments by Monday. No formal vote on the bill was recorded in the transcript; the item was left pending while amendments are prepared and counsel reviews proposed language.
Key points: authors plan to work with committee counsel to draft amendments that add a public-input process and business-protection guardrails similar to assessment-district rules. The committee took no final action and will revisit the bill once amendments are available.
