ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

North Dakota Century Code (NDCC) Chapter 54-35.2 establishes the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. The commission is directed by law to study local government structure, fiscal and other powers and functions of local governments, relationships between and among local governments and the state or any other government, allocation of state and local resources, and interstate issues involving local governments.

North Dakota Century Code Section 54-35.2-01 establishes the membership of the commission: four members of the Legislative Assembly appointed by the Legislative Council, two citizen members appointed by the North Dakota League of Cities, two citizen members appointed by the North Dakota Association of Counties, one citizen member appointed by the North Dakota Township Officers Association, one citizen member appointed by the North Dakota Recreation and Park Association, one citizen member appointed by the North Dakota School Boards Association, and the Governor or the Governor's designee. The Legislative Council designates the chairman of the commission. All members of the commission serve a term of two years. Commission members were Representatives Scot Kelsh (Chairman) and Andrew Maragos; Senators Bill L. Bowman and Michael Polovitz; North Dakota League of Cities representatives Bob Frantsvog and Devra Smestad; North Dakota Association of Counties representatives Ron Anderson and Mike Montplaisir; North Dakota Township Officers Association representative Donny Malcomb; North Dakota Recreation and Park Association representative Randy Bina; North Dakota School Boards Association representative Bev Nielson; and Governor John Hoeven.

The commission submitted this report to the Legislative Council at the biennial meeting of the Council in November 2004. The Council accepted the report for submission to the 59th Legislative Assembly.

MILL LEVY CONSOLIDATION

Background

Between 1981 and 1993 each Legislative Assembly enacted legislation allowing political subdivisions to increase levy authority in dollars by a specified percentage. This optional levy increase authority was established in 1981 when the property tax system was restructured to avoid substantial increases or decreases in property tax bases which would have occurred when property was reassessed.

In 1995 the Legislative Assembly enacted Senate Bill No. 2081, which allowed a taxing district to levy up to 2 percent more in 1995 and up to 2 percent more in 1996 than was levied in the taxing district's base year. The bill defined "base year" as the taxing district's taxable year with the highest amount levied in dollars in property taxes of the three taxable years immediately preceding the budget year. The bill did not allow optional levy increases for taxable years after 1996 and allowed taxing districts to levy only up to the amount levied in the base year after 1996.

In 1997 the Legislative Assembly considered, but did not enact, Senate Bill No. 2021, which would have eliminated several special mill levies for cities, counties, and park districts and would have allowed those entities to include levies for those specific purposes within their general mill levy. The bill would have allowed a growth factor through which the maximum mills that could be levied by cities, counties, and park districts would have been tied to the consumer price index. In 1997 the Legislative Assembly also considered, but did not enact, Senate Bill No. 2022, which would have eliminated all mill levy limitations for a period of two years for cities, counties, and park districts.

During the 1997-98 interim, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations received testimony from local government officials requesting the commission to consider proposing legislation, similar to the 1997 legislation, which would either eliminate or suspend the mill levy limitations. Although the commission members generally supported the concept of either suspending mill levy limitations or consolidating mill levies, the commission members were reluctant to recommend legislation because of inadequate time to consider the idea during the interim.

In 1999 the Legislative Assembly considered, but did not enact, Senate Bill No. 2346, which would have suspended for two years all statutory mill levy limitations that affect the amount that may be levied by cities, counties, and park districts.

During the 1999-2000 interim, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations again addressed consolidation of mill levies. The commission recommended House Bill No. 1031, which provided for the consolidation of several park district special levies into the park district general fund levy, and the Legislative Assembly enacted that bill.

During the 2001-02 interim, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations again addressed consolidation of mill levies. The commission recommended House Bill No. 1024, which consolidated several special county levies into the county general fund levy that may not exceed 134 mills and which allowed the voters of a county to refer the question of consolidating the levies to a vote of the qualified electors of the county. The Legislative Assembly enacted House Bill No. 1024 with amendments that limited increases in the number of mills levied by limiting mill levy increases to increases in the consumer price index.

Testimony and Commission Considerations

Park Districts

The commission received a report from a representative of the North Dakota Recreation and Park Association regarding the status of the consolidation of park district mill levies. The consolidation of the mill levies is generally working well and allows for needed flexibility. Although some park and recreation districts have considered a dedicated mill for health insurance, generally the use of the general fund for funding health insurance works well. No legislative changes were suggested.

Counties

The commission received testimony that although 2003 House Bill No. 1024 amended NDCC Section 57-15-06.10 to allow counties the option of consolidating certain county mill levies, not a single county has used this option. Testimony indicated that the consolidation option has not been used, at least in part, because:

1. County auditors are uncertain how to implement a mill levy increase under the consumer price index provision under Section 57-15-06.10 because the section does not specify the date of the index intended to be used.
2. County auditors are concerned that the consolidated general fund growth provision is based on mills instead of dollars, thereby negatively impacting any county in which property valuation is decreasing.
3. County auditors are concerned because under Section 57-15-06.10, a consolidated general fund increase would be based on a one-year lookback; therefore, a county would have to be very cautious about lowering the consolidated mill levy because if an increase were desired at a later date, it may take years to increase the levies back to the level they were at before being lowered.
4. County auditors are concerned there may be problems associated with including in the consolidated general fund the levy for appointed boards, including the situation in which a board's authority does not mirror county boundaries.

In response to the issues raised by the county auditors, the North Dakota Association of Counties presented three alternative bill drafts to the commission. All three bill drafts changed the individual levies consolidated to create the single general fund levy of 118 mills by:

1. Removing the levies for the four appointed boards that separately certify their levies to the board of county commissioners:
   1. The county weed board, NDCC Sections 57-15-54 and 63-01.1-06.
   2. The weather modification board, NDCC Section 61-04.1-26.
   3. The county park board, NDCC Sections 11-28-06 and 57-15-06.9.
   4. The library board, NDCC Section 40-38-02.
2. Removing the industrial development organization levy, NDCC Section 11-11.1-06, which was intended to have been done in the original 2003 bill.
3. Including the handicapped programs and activities levy, NDCC Section 57-15-60, which was inadvertently left out of the original 2003 bill.

The three bill drafts proposed by the North Dakota Association of Counties differed in the approach to the future growth of a consolidated general fund.

1. The first version:
   1. Provided the consolidated general fund growth determination is based on dollars and not mills.
   2. Clarified the consumer price index would be that of the previous calendar year.
   3. Allowed for a three-year lookback rather than a single-year lookback.
2. The second version:
   1. Provided the consolidated general fund growth determination is based on dollars and not mills.
   2. Replaced the consumer price index growth provision with an 18 percent per year increase provision.
   3. Allowed for a three-year lookback rather than a single-year lookback.
3. The third version removed the growth limitation language and instead relied on the 118-mill cap.

The commission received testimony that the North Dakota Association of Counties preferred the third version, which removed the growth limitation; however, if the consolidation is to include a growth limitation, the association preferred the first version.

The commission received testimony from representatives of the North Dakota Farm Bureau in opposition to county consolidation of mill levies under NDCC Section 57-15-06.10 because this section allows for consolidation without first requiring a vote of county electors. Although Section 57-15-06.10(2) provides consolidation is subject to the right of referendum by the county electors, this only takes place after the county commissioners have made a determination to consolidate.

The North Dakota Farm Bureau perceived the consolidation law as an opportunity for county commissioners to raise taxes without a vote of the electors and proposed that NDCC Section 57-15-06.10 be amended to require a vote of the county electors before a county implements consolidation. County tax increase opportunities under Section 57-15-06.10 may include tax increases that may result from the consolidated 134-mill general fund maximum because no county is using the maximum of all of the consolidated levies, increases based on the consumer price index, and increases that may result due to increased property valuation.

Representatives of the North Dakota Farm Bureau opposed the three bill drafts proposed by the North Dakota Association of Counties. The general position of that organization was that the consolidation of county mill levy law allows for a potential tax increase without a vote of the people, a vote of the people should take place before a county changes to a consolidated mill levy system, levies for entities with boards should not be included in the consolidated general fund, current law relating to how a tax increase would take place is problematic, and current law regarding reference to the consumer price index should be changed to reflect a date certain. In addition to the North Dakota Association of Counties proposed removal of the four boards' mill levies from the consolidated general fund, the North Dakota Farm Bureau supported also removing the mill levies affiliated with county historical work and county fairs.

The commission received testimony from a representative of the State Historical Society supporting removal of the county historical society mill levy from the consolidated general fund because removing the county historical society mill levy from the consolidated general fund would be a mechanism to stabilize funding for these county services. County historical societies take care of a variety of services that the state does not. Services offered through county historical societies include providing programs for schoolchildren, as well as providing economic development services.

The commission received testimony from a representative of the North Dakota Weed Control Association opposing inclusion of the county weed board levy in the consolidated general fund because if the weed board levy is consolidated into a county general fund, the weed board may be found ineligible for some state funds that require a three-mill levy. In 2003 the North Dakota Weed Control Association opposed the inclusion of the weed board levy in the county mill levy consolidation bill.

The commission received testimony from the State Librarian and representatives of local libraries supporting removal of the library board levy from the consolidated general fund because exempting the library board mill levy from the consolidated general fund will assist libraries in budgeting.

Following commission consideration of a bill draft based on the third version of the bill draft proposed by the North Dakota Association of Counties and discussions between representatives of the North Dakota Association of Counties and the North Dakota Farm Bureau, the North Dakota Farm Bureau proposed the following two amendments to the commission's bill draft:

1. Place the issue of consolidation on the ballot before a county action consolidates mill levies.
2. Within this consolidation vote, allow voters to establish a general fund mill levy cap.

Recommendation

The commission recommends House Bill No. 1025 to revise the county general fund levy under NDCC Section 57-15-06.10, removing from the consolidated general fund the specific mill levies for the industrial development organization, county parks and recreation, library fund, weed board and weed control, and weather modification; decreasing the maximum general fund levy from 134 to 118 mills; and removing the general fund levy increase limitations that are based on the consumer price index.

DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAXES

Testimony and Commission Considerations

The commission considered the issue of decreasing the time between failure to pay property taxes and foreclosure on a property tax lien. A representative of the Tax Commissioner's office outlined the foreclosure of tax lien process. The following example was provided:

January 1, 2004	2003 property taxes due
March 2, 2004	First installment of property taxes and annual special assessments become delinquent, 3 percent penalty added
May 1, 2004	3 percent penalty added
July 1, 2004	3 percent penalty added
October 15, 2004	3 percent penalty added
October 16, 2004	Second installment becomes delinquent, 6 percent penalty added
November 1-15, 2004	Notice of tax lien. Unless taxes, special assessments, penalty, interest, and costs are paid by October 1, 2008 (the fourth year following the year in which the taxes became delinquent), the county will foreclose on the tax lien and issue a tax deed to the county.
June 1, 2008	Notice of foreclosure of tax lien
October 1, 2008	Tax lien is foreclosed and tax lien is issued to county
November 3, 2008	Notice of sale posted in county auditor's office
November 8, 2008	Notice of sale published in official newspaper
November 18, 2008	Annual sale of land acquired by tax deed

The commission received testimony regarding how other states deal with delinquent property taxes. There are more than 150 different systems in the United States for collecting property taxes; therefore, it is difficult to accurately compare one state's system to another state's system. North Dakota's system differs significantly from the systems of neighboring states in that the North Dakota system provides for direct escheatment to the county. Data from a year 2000 report of the International Association of Assessing Officers indicates North Dakota has a 5 percent tax delinquency in a typical year, with 99 percent of property taxes ultimately being collected without foreclosure.

The commission received testimony that although the system for collection of delinquent property taxes is not necessarily broken, some people get into deep financial trouble when property taxes are delinquent and that allowing for almost five years of delinquency adds to this problem. A two-year decrease in the period for foreclosure would be simple; however, the actual implementation would be more complicated due to the order in which delinquent taxes become due.

The commission received testimony in support of decreasing the period of foreclosure for delinquent property taxes. Testimony indicated that the current law provides for an abnormally long period in which schools, counties, cities, and other local institutions are deprived of the timely use of tax dollars, thereby placing a greater burden on those taxpayers who do pay their taxes in a timely manner.

The commission considered the issue of allowing for a short-term period of amnesty for interest and penalties to ease the implementation of a two-year decrease in the period for foreclosure. Although boards of county commissioners have some discretion in allowing for abatement of property taxes, interest, and penalties, this discretion has been interpreted narrowly and it would likely be necessary to put this authority in law. Testimony was received that special assessments make a big difference to city governments and the special assessments should be considered before any abatement of property tax is allowed.

Recommendation

The commission recommends House Bill No. 1026 to decrease from approximately five years to approximately three years the period of time in which foreclosure will take place for delinquent property taxes and also to allow a board of county commissioners to waive all or part of the penalties and interest on delinquent real estate taxes if the board determines the reduced period for foreclosure of tax liens creates a hardship for similarly situated taxpayers. The waiver of penalty and interest is effective through October 1, 2009, and the decrease in the period of foreclosure is effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2004, with the property tax proceedings relating to property taxes due or delinquent for any taxable year prior to 2005 subject to the provisions of law that are in effect on December 31, 2004.

DOCUMENT PRESERVATION FUND

Background

In 2001 the Legislative Assembly enacted Senate Bill No. 2173, which required county treasurers to establish a document preservation fund to receive recording fees. The bill provided that the revenue in the fund may be used only for contracting for and purchasing equipment and software for a document preservation, storage, and retrieval system; training employees to operate the system; maintaining and updating the system; and contracting for the offsite storage of microfilm or electronic duplicates of documents for the county recorder's office. The bill increased several fees collected by the recorder's office. The bill also provided that the document preservation fund and the additional fees imposed for the purpose of that fund expire on June 30, 2005.

Testimony and Commission Considerations

The commission received a brief summary of the history behind the enactment of 2001 Senate Bill No. 2173. Following the Red River Valley flood of 1997, a plan was developed and implemented to microfilm all real estate records in all 53 counties and to provide for storage of that microfilm at a secure offsite location. Following receipt of a $1.2 million Federal Emergency Management Agency grant to assist North Dakota counties in putting in place tools to ensure that valuable records can be replaced in the event of a disaster, counties needed additional funding to upgrade operations. Senate Bill No. 2173 provided this funding.

The commission received a request from representatives of the North Dakota County Recorders Association that the June 30, 2005, expiration of Senate Bill No. 2173 be removed. Testimony was received indicating the document preservation funds collected are being spent wisely and are providing counties with needed financial security in caring for county records. As of August 2003 approximately $1,174,689 had been deposited in the document preservation fund, with a portion of this money used to totally fund the offsite repository. Testimony was received that document preservation funds are necessary for counties to begin and continue the process of computerization, technology upgrades, and the ongoing process of microfilming and storing records offsite. The goals and accomplishments that rely on the continuation of the document preservation fund in order to be a continued success include:

1. Microfilming land records.
2. Creating an electronic repository.
3. Creating microfilm from digital records.
4. Creating a North Dakota recorders' web site.
5. Publishing land records data to the Internet.

Recommendation

The commission recommends Senate Bill No. 2024 to remove the June 30, 2005, expiration date for the document preservation fund and to continue the additional fees imposed for the purpose of funding that fund.

MOTOR VEHICLE BRANCH OFFICES

Background

During the 1999-2000 interim, the Budget Committee on Government Services studied state agency office space needs to determine the feasibility and desirability of transferring state agencies or state employees to rural areas. As part of this study, the committee recommended 2001 Senate Bill No. 2027, which as enrolled, provided for a motor vehicle branch office pilot project at three sites within Bowman, Emmons, and McKenzie Counties. The bill provided the three branch offices to administer motor vehicle registration programs would be operated by the country treasurer of each county and the Department of Transportation was responsible for paying the training costs of the personnel necessary to implement the pilot project. The pilot project is scheduled to expire July 31, 2005.

Testimony and Commission Considerations

The commission received a motor vehicle branch office pilot project status report from representatives of the Department of Transportation and from representatives of the three county treasurers of the pilot counties. As part of these status reports, the commission received testimony that a performance audit of the Department of Transportation Driver and Vehicle Services was conducted by the State Auditor, at the request of the Legislative Council's interim Legislative Audit and Fiscal Review Committee. The audit dated July 11, 2003, and conducted for the State Auditor by the independent consulting firm MTG Management Consultants, LLC (MTG), provided several recommendations, including:

MTG recommends the Department of Transportation's Motor Vehicle Division evaluate the current process for awarding branch office contracts including the need for a change in North Dakota Century Code and consider competitive contracts for branch office operations. Contracts should be awarded based upon the ability to perform the work, relative experience, vendor performance, and cost considerations.

The commission received testimony the Department of Transportation is consulting with the Governor regarding several of the audit recommendations, including this recommendation, in order to form a comprehensive strategic plan that includes the issue of motor vehicle branch offices.

A representative of the Department of Transportation testified that in addition to the pilot program required under Senate Bill No. 2027, NDCC Section 39-02-03 authorizes the director of the Department of Transportation, subject to the Governor's approval, to establish branch offices as determined necessary. Therefore, regardless of the expiration of the pilot program, the department and the Governor may continue the three branches operated by county treasurers and may add additional county treasurer-operated branch offices.

Testimony was received that the state's motor vehicle registration and licensing services are available through the mail, branch offices, Internet, and the main Department of Transportation office in Bismarck. Regardless of which system is used to register or license a vehicle, because it is a closed system, adding another mechanism does not increase the total number of registrations or renewals. Although all the vehicle registration and licensure services may be provided remotely, through the mail or through the Internet, some individuals prefer person-to-person contact through a branch office or through the main office in Bismarck.

Testimony was received that although the three pilot project branch offices are not using the vehicle registration and titling system, they are in the process of moving to this system. The initial setup cost in the pilot project branch offices was less than the Department of Transportation initially expected and the cost of implementing the vehicle registration and titling system will likely be recognized as a cost-savings. A representative of the Department of Transportation testified that the three county treasurer branch offices will remain after expiration of the pilot program, in part because the three branches are working well and in part because once a service is offered it is very difficult to take away that service.

Representatives of the three pilot counties testified that the pilot project has been very successful in all three counties. All three pilot program branch offices fund their operations by charging a surcharge, and these surcharge fees are retained by the counties in their general funds. Not only do the counties benefit from providing the branch office services but because of individuals coming to register motor vehicles, local businesses benefit from having a branch office in the community.

The commission received testimony from proponents of the pilot program requesting that the existing three county treasurer-operated branch offices remain and that additional county treasurer-operated branch office sites be considered. In support of this request, the commission received testimony that because of the changing duties of treasurers, such as automation in county government, it has become possible for some treasurers to add services, such as motor vehicle registration. County government may have a unique advantage in operating branch sites due to the infrastructure and technology available to the counties. However, not every county is seeking a branch office. The provision of branch office services is hard work and requires a significant investment in equipment, an investment that not all counties are interested in pursuing.

At the request of the commission, representatives of the North Dakota Association of Counties, the three treasurers in the pilot project counties, and representatives of the Department of Transportation met to discuss how to proceed with the matter of the expiration of the pilot project. Although the meeting did not result in the determination of agreed-upon specified criteria upon which to make branch office location determinations, the parties did agree upon several general factors that should be considered in making future branch office location determinations, including population, distance between branch offices, the desire or the ability of a county treasurer to provide branch office services, the cost of establishing an office, and time-honored tradition. Additionally, the commission received testimony from a representative of the Department of Transportation that in addition to the continued existence of the three current branch offices operated by treasurers, the department supports adding three additional county treasurer-located branch offices in the next two years. The packet of information the Department of Transportation is submitting to the Governor for consideration in establishing the comprehensive strategic plan for motor vehicle branch offices will include information submitted by representatives of the three pilot project branch office treasurers.

Conclusion

The commission makes no recommendation with respect to motor vehicle branch offices.

SHERIFF SERVICE OF PROCESS

Testimony and Commission Considerations

The commission received a report from representatives of the North Dakota Association of Counties regarding issues relating to payment to sheriffs for service of process. Testimony was received that there is a difference of opinion by the Attorney General's office and the court system with regard to whether a county sheriff may charge the court when personal service of a summons, a writ, a subpoena, a notice, or an order is requested by the court. A 1998 Attorney General's opinion provided that a sheriff can charge a court for the sheriff providing personal service. In addition to being a policy issue, the issue of service of process is a fiscal issue because counties incur costs related to sheriff service and the ultimate question may be whether these costs are more appropriately supported by county mill levies or whether these costs are more appropriately supported through an appropriation for the judicial branch. Testimony was received this payment issue may be one of the last unresolved issues remaining from court unification.

The commission received testimony from the State Court Administrator that although the courts have not budgeted for and are not prepared to pay sheriffs for personal service by sheriffs, there has been a move by district court judges to provide that once a party is served with a summons and complaint or a warrant, all subsequent service will be by first-class mail. The trend is that courts and judges are only using personal service as a last resort. A survey performed by the State Court Administrator's office indicates the cumulative court cost for paying sheriffs for personal service would be approximately $400,000 per biennium.

Conclusion

The commission makes no recommendation with respect to sheriff service of process funding issues.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

Background

During the 2001-02 interim, the commission received a report from the director of the North Dakota Division of Emergency Management regarding homeland security and emergency management. The commission did not make any recommendations regarding homeland security and emergency management.

During the 2003-04 interim, the Legislative Council's interim Emergency Services Committee studied the state's emergency management system; the impact of federal emergency reorganization on the state's emergency operations plan; emergency preparedness of state agencies and local governments; the state's public health unit infrastructure; and the ability of the public health units to respond to public health issues, including disease and other physical health, environmental, and disaster-related issues.

Testimony and Commission Considerations

The commission received a report on the status of the consolidation of State Radio Communications with the Division of Emergency Management, received a report on the status of the state's homeland security strategy and receipt of federal homeland security funds, received a report on the topic of intrastate mutual aid, and toured the State Operations Center and State Radio Communications.

Consolidation

The commission received a status report on the status of the consolidation of State Radio Communications with the Division of Emergency Management. The Division of Emergency Management is responsible for providing statewide public safety communications; providing emergency planning, training, and program assistance to political subdivisions, tribal governments, and the state; preparing and maintaining a state emergency operations plan; and coordinating public, private, and individual homeland security efforts. Following consolidation, the division consists of 55 full-time and temporary staff who may be needed during disaster response and recovery. Although the division is growing, the commission received testimony that this growth is in part based upon the receipt of federal funds.

Homeland Security

The commission received a report on the state's homeland security strategy and the receipt of federal homeland security funds. The commission received testimony from a representative of the Division of Emergency Management that the state's homeland security strategy goals and objectives include:

• Attaining radio communication interoperability among federal, state, local, and tribal first responders.
• Developing a prevention, response, and recovery capability to ensure accurate deployment of resources.
• Fostering the sharing of law enforcement sensitive information.
• Upgrading state terrorism and weapons of mass destruction response capability.
• Developing a tiered response capability to ensure statewide terrorism and weapons of mass destruction incident response.
• Improving the ability of the state to prevent, respond, and recover from acts of terrorism or of weapons of mass destruction through refinement of the state emergency operations plan, state multihazard mitigation plan, jurisdictional emergency operations plans, and jurisdictional multihazard mitigation plans.
• Assuring continuation of essential government functions in the state.
• Training first responders and community leaders to recognize, prevent, and respond to a terrorism or weapons of mass destruction incident.
• Institutionalizing command system training in the state.
• Expanding and supporting homeland security training into established academic institutions.
• Evaluating the competency of plans, training, and equipment and personnel resources through a progressive exercise program.
• Providing adequate professional and support staff to monitor, implement, and evaluate homeland security programs at a state and local level.

The commission received testimony that the time, energy, and financial resources necessary to reach these goals is significant and it is a myth that states have more homeland security money than they know what to do with. The fiscal year 2004 homeland security grant for North Dakota totaled $19,536,000.

The commission received testimony that the goal of radio communication interoperability will primarily be reached through converting analog communications to digital communications. This transition from an analog to digital system is in large part being pushed by the industry and some equipment on radio towers in the state is so old it is either impossible or too expensive to replace or repair.

The commission received testimony that the Division of Emergency Management is gathering information regarding the feasibility and desirability of investing in a reverse 911 system for emergency notification in the event of natural disasters, hazardous material releases, and severe weather and to assist in evacuations and safe returns. Drawbacks of reverse 911 systems may include saturation of telephone systems and questions regarding the actual effectiveness of the system for emergency notification, whereas beneficial elements of a reverse 911 system may include the effectiveness for notifying individuals in a specified area as well as providing excellent redundancy and rapid list capabilities.

Intrastate Mutual Aid

The commission received a status report from representatives of the Intrastate Mutual Aid Committee regarding the committee's activities to address emergency response unit provision of intrastate mutual aid. Following the events of September 11, 2001, the Department of Homeland Security and National Emergency Management Association recognized the need to effectively move assets between local jurisdictions as they respond to disasters. Recognizing a similar need in the state, the North Dakota Division of Emergency Management identified and brought together 24 agencies and organizations to form the Intrastate Mutual Aid Committee to discuss the need for intrastate mutual aid legislation. This committee ultimately formed a smaller working group to help draft proposed legislation for the 2005 legislative session. The commission received a draft of the committee's proposed legislation for which the committee is seeking bipartisan legislator sponsorship.

Proponents of the proposed legislation testified that the proposed legislation provides the basic groundwork for communities requesting help from one another and for filling gaps for situations and service providers for which formal mutual aid agreements do not exist. In addition to providing for the default use of an incident command system, which outlines the command, control, and coordination of resources and personnel at the scene of an emergency, the proposed legislation may help ensure that agencies involved in responding to emergencies are eligible for receipt of Homeland Security Department funds.

Conclusion

The commission supports the concept of intrastate mutual aid; however, due to time limitations, it was not feasible for the commission to recommend a bill.

WIND TURBINE SITING

Background

During the 2001-02 interim, the commission received a report from a representative of the National Conference of State Legislatures regarding the generation of electricity through wind energy. The commission did not make any recommendations with respect to wind energy.

During the 2003-04 interim, the Legislative Council's interim Electric Industry Competition Committee studied issues related to wind energy development in the state; the feasibility and desirability of enacting legislation to tax electric utility providers with a fair and uniform tax system; and the impact of competition on the generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy within the state.

Testimony and Commission Considerations

The commission considered issues relating to siting of wind turbines. The commission received a report from a representative of the American Wind Energy Association regarding wind turbine siting, including:

• Where wind resources are located in the United States,
• Which states have renewable energy standards,
• How much energy each state in the country uses,
• Turbine technology statistics,
• Statistics regarding worldwide use of wind energy,
• Information regarding how policy affects wind energy,
• Issues related to turbine siting, and
• Statistics regarding the future of wind energy.

The commission received testimony from a representative of the American Wind Energy Association regarding issues that may arise upon decommission of a wind turbine. There may be value in addressing the issue of cleanup of a decommissioned site during initial site determination and initial contracts. In the late 1970s and 1980s, wind energy incentives were based upon capital investiture; therefore, efficiency was not the issue of primary importance and as a result many of these sites were abandoned. However, the wind industry learned from these earlier experiences and incentives are now typically based on productivity, resulting in more successful sites. Additionally, because a wind turbine will not face an exhausted resource, a turbine may be updated and may essentially last indefinitely. Options for dealing with decommissioning include state regulation, front-end incentive provisions, establishment of escrow accounts, and specific contract provisions.

The commission received testimony from a representative of the American Wind Energy Association regarding wind turbine siting issues. Minnesota is one of two states that have addressed wind turbine siting through state law and administrative rule. Minnesota limits the statewide siting requirements to large wind turbine projects, intentionally excluding community wind projects so that local zoning and ordinances can address these smaller projects.

The commission received testimony from a representative of the American Wind Energy Association regarding transmission lines and integration. Although the issues related to the issue of transmission lines need to be dealt with federally, there are examples of wind energy transmission being successful.

Conclusion

The commission makes no recommendation with respect to wind energy.

« Back

Top