A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 57-15 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to limitations on property tax levies by taxing districts without voter approval; and to provide an effective date.
HB 1353 would have imposed a statewide cap on how much a taxing district in North Dakota could increase the dollar amount of property taxes levied from one year to the next without voter approval. In general, a district’s levy could not grow by more than the consumer price index for the Midwest, capped at 3 percent, with adjustments for changes in taxable property, exemptions, and temporary levies. If a district increased less than the allowed amount in one year, it could carry forward the unused increase for up to three succeeding taxable years, subject to limits in the bill.
The bill also carved out several categories of levies from the cap, including new or increased authority not available in the prior year, bonded indebtedness, the state medical center levy, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District levy, certain special assessments and obligations, and specified statutory levies. Any increase above the cap would require approval by at least 60 percent of voting electors at a statewide primary or general election, and only for one taxable year at a time. The bill expressly barred cities and counties from using home rule authority to override or modify the limitation.
If enacted, HB 1353 would have amended North Dakota property tax law by creating a new statewide restriction in chapter 57-15 on levy growth by taxing districts, including cities, counties, school districts, and other political subdivisions with taxing authority. It would have limited local discretion over annual property tax increases, required voter approval for larger increases, and applied beginning with taxable years after December 31, 2024. The measure would have affected local governments, taxpayers, and any entity relying on property tax levies, while preserving existing constitutional and statutory levies specifically excluded in the bill.
The bill appears to have been driven by a property-tax-limitation, taxpayer-protection approach, with sponsors seeking tighter control over local levy growth and more direct voter involvement for larger increases. However, the House rejected the bill on second reading by a wide margin, 25 yeas to 63 nays, indicating substantial opposition. The vote suggests that while the concept may have appealed to some members concerned about property tax burdens, most legislators were not persuaded to adopt the proposed statewide cap.
The main point of contention was the bill’s broad restriction on taxing districts’ ability to raise property taxes without voter approval, which likely raised concerns about local budget flexibility, inflationary pressures, and the ability of governments to respond to changing service demands. The 3 percent cap tied to CPI, the carry-forward mechanism, and the requirement of a 60 percent voter threshold for exceeding the cap were also likely contentious because they would have constrained local fiscal planning. Opponents likely objected to the bill’s reach across many taxing districts and its override of home rule authority, while supporters likely emphasized taxpayer relief and direct democratic control over tax increases.