Karla Rose Hanson

A critical skill for elected officials is the ability to achieve results by collaborating with others and building coalitions. While working at a large global technology company, I frequently facilitated business decisions across diverse groups. Collaboration and coalition-building skills are important because legislators need to work across the aisle, between chambers, with other branches of government, and with outside organizations in order to advance policy ideas. Strong communication skills are also important for elected officials. My professional background in corporate communications enables me to effectively connect with constituents and stakeholders and provide legislative updates to my district.

My priorities reflect the priorities of District 44 residents:

• Address the lack of accessible and affordable childcare and housing. These are barriers for those who want to move to ND for our open jobs, as well as for those who already live here.

• Strengthen public education, from preK to K-12 to higher education, so we prepare students for the workforce.

• Stand against the growing extremism in the legislature, which deters people from moving to ND. I’ll advocate for people’s freedom to make their own decisions about health care, library books, etc., without interference from the government.

I worry about the stability of North Dakota’s budget long-term. The state’s revenue model is heavily dependent on oil, which can lead to cuts in public services if oil prices or production falls sharply. A more stable revenue model would be multi-pronged, balancing revenue from sales, personal income, corporate income, property, oil, etc. – enabling more stable public services. Also, when the public identifies gaps in public services – like the lack of affordable housing or free lunch for our K-12 students – they want to know why lawmakers are cutting taxes while those needs go unmet.

Local chambers and economic development organizations should play the primary role in attracting, acclimating and retaining workforce. The state can serve a limited role in attracting workforce by running a compelling advertising program that promotes ND as a great place to visit, live and work, which will complement local recruitment efforts. ND also needs to create a welcoming environment for everyone, and the culture war fights and growing extremism in the ND Legislature does the opposite of that.

I support state funding for some specific purposes, like advancing new industries and start-up businesses, and I support programs like the Renaissance Zone that encourages economic development through tax exemptions. I don’t support giving funds to projects that will happen whether they get a tax credit / grant or not. I also look at the return on our investment as a major consideration.

I support the use of public funds to address specific needs when the private market is unable to do so. The shortage of affordable childcare and housing are significant barriers to attracting and retaining workers in ND. To address the lack of affordable childcare, the state should create a childcare provider stabilization fund to secure the childcare workforce so more spots become available for families. To address the lack of affordable housing, the state should invest more in the Housing Incentive Fund to build more affordable housing units.

Generally, yes. If there is broad benefit – like supplying water to residents, farmers and businesses during droughts – the use of public funds is appropriate.

Before tapping into the Legacy Fund, the ND Legislature must set criteria for what constitutes a strategic project or initiative. Most public services and projects should be funded by our normal tax revenue – similar to paying your weekly bills with your weekly paycheck. To dip into your savings account to pay for your groceries or electrical bill is not sustainable – you’ll soon drain your rainy day fund. Similarly, the Legacy Fund should not fund the day-to-day operations of state government, but could be used to fund rare, one-time projects that significantly advance our future well-being and economy.

I oppose Measure 4. It would cost our state more than $1.5 billion per year to replace local property taxes, and there is not a good plan in place to replace this revenue. Local entities like cities, counties and schools that have growing needs in their community would need to raise revenue in other ways - through fees or sales taxes and the like - and/or these local entities would need to come to the legislature and compete with each other for state funds. It’s better to keep property taxes managed locally.