Latest news with #BenKoppelman
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
North Dakota speed limit going up Aug. 1 as governor signs bill
Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, the prime sponsor of a bill to raise North Dakota's interstate speed limit to 80 mph, sits at his desk May 2, 2025. (Kyle Martin/For the North Dakota Monitor) North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong made the state's jump to an 80 mph speed limit official Monday, signing a bill that also raises fines for speeding. 'This bill strikes a reasonable balance by aligning North Dakota's interstate speed limit with two of our three neighboring states and increasing fines as a deterrent to speeding,' Armstrong said in a statement. On Aug. 1, North Dakota will join neighbors South Dakota and Montana at 80 mph on interstate highways. The top speed limit in Minnesota is 70 mph. Then-Gov. Doug Burgum in 2023 vetoed a bill to increase the speed limit to 80 mph. Legislature sends bill to raise North Dakota speed limit to governor This year's version of the bill, House Bill 1298, creates a new system of calculating speeding fines on all roads. For highways with a speed limit of 65 mph or higher, the fine will be $20 or $5 for every mile per hour over the limit, whichever is greater. In slower speed zones, there will be a $20 fine for speeding or $3 for every mile per hour over the limit, whichever is greater. For both road categories, going more than 16 mph over the limit adds $20 to the fine. Speeding in a construction zone with workers present jumps from an extra $80 fine to $150. The bill passed Friday as the North Dakota Legislature wrapped up its session. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House kills term limit start date bill after conference committee stalemate
Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, speaks about term limits during a committee hearing on Jan. 23, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) A bill clarifying the state date for North Dakota's term limits law failed in the House on a 61-28 vote Monday. The bill was debated over multiple conference committee meetings in recent days. The Senate version contained a Jan. 1, 2023 start date for the term limits, while the House version advanced a Nov. 7, 2022 start date. North Dakota voters in 2022 approved a ballot measure that limits lawmakers to serving up to eight years in each chamber. Previously, Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, chief sponsor of House Bill 1300, said the bill was to provide clarity on the start date for term limits approved by the voters. Term limits bill reconsidered, headed to North Dakota conference committee Rep. Steve Vetter, R-Grand Forks, said the House reconsidered its actions after previously voting against the bill and sent the measure to a conference committee to see if senators would agree to the House's start date. 'It didn't look like we kept our position, so I'd ask for a red vote,' Vetter said before voting against the bill. The failure of the bill in the House leaves Senate Resolution 4008, which passed both chambers of the Legislature, as the only term limit resolution passed by lawmakers during the 2025 session. If approved by the Secretary of State's Office as a valid resolution it would go to the voters as a ballot measure during the 2026 general election. The resolution would allow lawmakers to serve four terms, up to 16 years, in a single legislative chamber. It also clarifies that a partial term does not count against the limit. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
North Dakota House kills final Education Savings Account bill of session
Rep. Ben Koppelman, left, R-West Fargo, asks a question to Rep. Mike Nathe, R-Bismarck, on the House floor on April 24, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The North Dakota House overwhelmingly rejected an Education Savings Account bill Thursday night, a day after the governor vetoed a similar bill. House members voted 78-14 against Senate Bill 2400, which sought to provide private school vouchers plus Education Savings Accounts for public school and homeschooled students. In vetoing House Bill 1540, which only benefited private school students, Gov. Kelly Armstrong urged lawmakers to move the competing proposal forward. Armstrong vetoes North Dakota private school voucher bill, but signals support for competing bill But the $110 million price tag to the Senate bill is likely why many opposed it, said House Majority Leader Mike Lefor, R-Dickinson. Lefor, who supported the bill, said he doesn't see a path for an Education Savings Account proposal to come back this session. 'I'm a strong advocate for school choice, and I will continue to be,' Lefor said. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Michelle Axtman, R-Bismarck, included vouchers for private school students ranging from $1,000 to $3,500 per student, depending on household income. The dollars could be spent on tuition or other qualifying educational expenses. Public school and homeschooled students would be eligible for $1,000 for educational expenses. Private school students attending schools that don't participate in the program would be eligible for $500. The House Education Committee voted 11-3 to give the bill a do-not-pass recommendation. Rep. Dori Hauck, R-Hebron, a member of the committee, said members were concerned about the complexity of the bill and the administrative burden to oversee it. 'Questions remain about how easily DPI (Department of Public Instruction) could implement, manage and expand the system without significant additional staffing and resources,' Hauck said. Supporters have advocated for expanding educational opportunities for students and giving parents more power over their children's education. Opponents objected to spending public dollars to pay for private school tuition. Axtman's bill included $3 million in the event it passed and was challenged by a lawsuit. Armstrong advocated for a school choice bill that benefited all students, not only those who attend private school. Others questioned spending additional money on public school students when the state already invests in K-12 education. Bills look to expand North Dakota student opportunities through savings accounts Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, the chief sponsor of the bill vetoed by Armstrong, said he believes it will be difficult to get enough support to overturn the governor's veto. Koppelman said he plans to introduce a bill during the 2027 legislative session that is 'a bit more wide sweeping.' 'We'll come back next session,' he said. Lawmakers began the legislative session with five Education Savings Account bills, but none of the proposals remain under consideration. Rep. Don Vigesaa, R-Cooperstown, said he voted against bills with public dollars for private school tuition because he represents a rural area that doesn't have private schools. 'I guess this session just wasn't the right time,' Vigesaa said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
North Dakota House approves change to state health insurance plan
Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, speaks on the House floor on Jan. 24, 2025. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The North Dakota House voted 55-37 on Wednesday in favor of a bill that some worry will lead to state employees paying health insurance premiums — though supporters say that is not the intention of the proposal. Senate Bill 2160 would move the state's insurance to a plan that offers benefits compliant with the federal Affordable Care Act. Proponents say it will give the state more flexibility over plan designs, which are limited under the current plan. This could save the state money at no extra cost to employees, said Rep. Jonathan Warrey, R-Casselton, the bill's sponsor. Savings are especially important in light of rising health care costs, he added. North Dakota lawmakers consider bill that could lead to state employees paying for health premiums The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday forwarded the bill with a 15-7 do-pass recommendation. The bill is expected to cost $6.6 million for the 2025-2027 budget cycle, plus an additional more than $25 million for the 2027-2029 biennium, according to a fiscal analysis attached to the bill. One of the biggest concerns voiced by critics is that the state would be able to start charging employees premiums. The state may be tempted to do so to offset the additional cost of the plan, opponents said. Under the current plan, the state cannot charge premiums. Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, said the bill does not force premiums on employees and there's no reason the state would need to in the future. The state would not have to charge employees premiums in order for the plan to be Affordable Care Act-compliant. 'I have no intention of charging a premium to the state employees,' Koppelman said. During committee discussion, however, some lawmakers did indicate they'd like to see state employees contribute to health insurance. Rep. Eric Murphy, R-Grand Forks, said that changing the plan is taking a big risk without assurance employees will prefer it. He said it's not clear that the plan will save money. People often take jobs with the state government for the benefits and stability, he argued. Warrey said Senate Bill 2160 would also give employees more free benefits, such as preventive health care like colonoscopy screening and mammograms. It would allow co-pays to count toward out-of-pocket maximums. Rep. Jim Kasper, R-Fargo, said that if employees take advantage of preventive care services the cost of the state plan will go down over time. They'll be able to address health conditions before they become more severe and more costly, he reasoned. According to Kasper, who said he has worked in employee benefits for 25 years, the private sector moved to Affordable Care-Act compliant plans long ago because they offer more flexibility. 'Grandfathered plans in my opinion are like dinosaurs,' Kasper said. If the state saves money by changing the plan, it could reallocate those extra funds into raising wages for employees, said Koppelman. This could be positive for recruitment and retention, he said. 'Young individuals are looking for more dollars in the check,' Koppelman said. Some state agencies have come out in opposition to the plan, Rep. Austen Schauer, R-West Fargo, noted on the floor. The Office of Management and Budget, for example, has said that employees consider the current health plan an important benefit and worry about the new plan impacting North Dakota's ability to attract state workers. The agency has also expressed concerns about how the state will fund the plan. Schauer said the state should seek more thorough data about the proposal, including what an Affordable Care Act-compliant plan would cost and how many employees support the change. The bill represents a 'huge decision that needs to be studied with input from all stakeholders,' Schauer said. The bill is expected to go to the Senate next for a concurrence vote. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
08-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Term limits bill reconsidered, headed to North Dakota conference committee
The North Dakota House of Representatives hold a floor session. (Michael Achterling/North Dakota Monitor) The North Dakota House on Tuesday reconsidered its actions on a bill that seeks to clarify the start date for legislative term limits. The House on Monday concurred with Senate amendments to House Bill 1300 but ultimately defeated the legislation. On Tuesday, the House revived the bill and instead rejected the Senate amendments, sending the bill to a conference committee. North Dakota voters in 2022 approved a ballot measure that limits lawmakers to serving up to eight years in each chamber. It's caused some confusion related to how it applies to lawmakers in even-numbered districts who were halfway through a term when the measure passed. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Ben Koppelman, R-West Fargo, clarified that the clock starts on term limits on Nov. 7, 2022. The impact of that change would mean lawmakers in even-numbered districts elected in 2020 and reelected in 2024 could be eligible to serve up to 10 years in one chamber. Without the change, they'd only be able to serve six years. Term limits changes revived for possible statewide vote in North Dakota The Senate version, however, starts the clock on Jan. 1, 2023. That means lawmakers in odd-numbered districts elected in 2022 could potentially serve up to 12 years in one chamber. The bill will now head to a conference committee made up of Senate and House members to resolve the differences between the two versions of the bill. Separately, Senate Resolution 4008 passed both chambers of the Legislature and could be put on the 2026 general election ballot, if approved by the Secretary of State's Office as a valid resolution. If approved by voters, the resolution would allow lawmakers to serve four terms, up to 16 years, in a single legislative chamber. It also clarifies that a partial term does not count against the limit. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
