Committee rejects DOT plan to run statewide sponsorship program for highway services

2107636 · January 10, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House Transportation Committee voted 13–1 to recommend a do-not-pass on House Bill 1054, which would have authorized the North Dakota Department of Transportation to enter sponsorship agreements and use a vendor to manage litter pickup, rest-area maintenance and similar services with sponsor recognition signs in the highway right-of-way.

The House Transportation Committee recommended a do-not-pass on House Bill 1054, a Department of Transportation proposal to authorize sponsorship agreements for highway-related services and sponsor-recognition signs on the state highway system. The committee recorded a 13–1 recommendation against the bill after extensive questioning about contracting, signage, and potential commercial advertising in the right-of-way.

Matt Lindeman, deputy director for engineering at the North Dakota Department of Transportation, described the bill as a tool to "alternatively resource the operation and maintenance of highway facilities, including but not limited to litter removal, rest area cleaning, or landscaping maintenance." His testimony explained the department’s model: the DOT would contract with a vendor that would secure sponsorships, hire the workers or subcontracts, and place acknowledgement signs to recognize sponsors. "There would be no cost to the DOT," Lindeman told the committee; he said the vendor would solicit funds from sponsors and use those funds to perform the work.

Committee members and outside witnesses raised a range of concerns. Representatives and witnesses questioned the competitiveness and market effects of awarding a statewide exclusive contract to a single vendor, potential interference with existing private contractors, the prospect of commercial logos in the state right-of-way, and risks to continuity of essential services if sponsorships lapsed. Jim England and Leo Ness of Newman Signs opposed the measure, describing it as a pathway to advertising in the right-of-way and warning of unintended consequences; England cited past instances in other states where sponsorship programs produced controversial outcomes.

Members sought more detail on costs the DOT currently pays for rest-area contracts and for how the adopt-a-highway program is declining. Lindeman said the DOT currently contracts for rest-area cleaning and that volunteers still operate adopt-a-highway segments, but that rest-area contract bidders are becoming scarcer. He also said the DOT would gather data from other states that run similar programs on costs and savings.

After the hearing and follow-up questions, the committee approved a do-not-pass recommendation on HB1054 by roll call, 13–1. Representative Casper, who moved the do-not-pass, and others argued the measure would create a statewide monopoly for a private vendor, threaten private-sector contractors, and allow logos on signs in the right-of-way. The committee did not advance the measure.

Votes at a glance: House Bill 1054 — committee recommendation: Do not pass (13–1).