Committee debates large township road-funding proposal, asks for data and amendments

The Senate Transportation Committee spent an extended portion of its meeting discussing Senate Bill 2142, a proposal to reallocate highway-related revenue and create a township road-and-bridge sustainability fund. Committee members requested data, raised equity concerns about levy thresholds and balances, and asked staff and agencies to draft and share specific amendments prior to the next meeting.

Senator Dean Rummel reported that he had requested and reviewed tax-department data showing there are 1,419 organized townships in the state and that, "I counted 592 of the 1419 are under 18 mills." He told the committee the combined township collections for the last available taxable year were read as "$34,000,00918" in the data he reviewed. Rummel used those figures to argue the committee should consider whether townships that do not levy to the 18-mill threshold should participate at the same level as those that do.

Committee members debated several mechanics of the proposal. The bill would direct 25% of a reallocated revenue stream to the new township fund and 75% to an existing flexible transportation fund; members discussed whether those percentages and the underlying assumption that all townships should be required to levy 18 mills are appropriate. Senator Klein and others emphasized the wide variation among townships and counties: several committee members noted that some townships have very low levies because countywide levies already fund rural roads in those jurisdictions, while other townships hold substantial balances.

Members raised the following recurring concerns and technical issues: - Equity for "unorganized" townships (areas where the county performs township functions) and whether counties would have access to funds intended for townships. - The 18-mill levy qualification that would exclude townships below that threshold from allocations and whether that criterion is fair for townships that purposefully maintain low levies or that participate in countywide levies. - A request from stakeholders to change the definition of "non oil producing counties" from an allocation-based test to a production-based test (for example, below a 3-year rolling average of crude production); that change was proposed to avoid counties moving in and out of the non‑producing category based on volatile oil prices. - The need to coordinate with other pending bills and committees (finance and tax, treasurer’s office) because related statutory flows and definitions (prairie-dog flow, county allocations, tax-code sections) affect final distributions.

Senator Rummel and others volunteered to provide and share detailed reports and counts; the committee asked the tax department and the state treasurer to prepare and, where needed, work on an amendment. Senator Cory emailed the state treasurer during the meeting asking to coordinate on an amendment. Committee members agreed to continue work on proposed amendments and to revisit the bill at the next meeting; no formal vote on SB 2142 occurred during this session.

Committee members repeatedly emphasized that, while the proposal would increase funding available for township roads, the total need for county and township road improvements far exceeds the proposal’s funding. "We need $13,000,000,000 to make all our county and township roads adequate," one senator said during the discussion to illustrate scale.

The committee scheduled follow-up work: staff and agencies will provide detailed breakdowns of current levies, township fund balances, and the striking-point for eligibility; senators also signaled they would prepare targeted amendments for next week’s meeting.