A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 57-02 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to limitations on taxable valuation increases without voter approval; and to provide an effective date.
Summary
HB 1534 would cap the taxable valuation of an individual parcel of property at no more than a 3 percent increase from the prior year, unless the increase is tied to new improvements that were not previously included in the property’s valuation. The cap would apply even if the property is sold or transferred, so a change in ownership would not by itself reset the valuation limit.
The bill also creates a voter-approval process for exceeding that cap. A taxing district could seek authorization from voters at a statewide general or primary election to allow a higher maximum annual increase in taxable valuation, but any approval would be limited to no more than four taxable years at a time. The measure further bars cities and counties from using home rule authority to override or alter the new limitation.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to chapter 57-02 of the North Dakota Century Code and directly constrain how property tax valuations may rise year to year. It would affect assessors, taxing districts, and property owners by limiting valuation growth on existing parcels, while preserving increases attributable to improvements and allowing temporary voter-approved exceptions. The bill would apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024.
Sentiment
The bill received strong initial support in the House, passing second reading 75-16, suggesting substantial interest in limiting property tax valuation growth. It was ultimately rejected in the Senate on second reading by a 0-46 vote, indicating clear opposition in that chamber and preventing enactment. Overall, the voting history shows a sharp split between chambers rather than broad bipartisan consensus.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s restriction on local property tax valuation growth and its removal of local discretion. Supporters likely viewed the measure as a taxpayer protection against rapid valuation increases, while opponents appear to have objected to the rigid statewide cap, the voter-approval mechanism, and the prohibition on cities and counties using home rule authority to modify the rule. The inclusion of a cap that follows the property after sale may also have been controversial because it limits reassessment flexibility in changing market conditions.