A BILL for an Act to create and enact two new sections to chapter 54-27, a new section to chapter 57-02, and a new section to chapter 57-15 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to a legacy earnings fund, a legacy property tax relief fund, a primary residence certification, and a limitation on property tax levies without voter approval; to amend and reenact section 6-09.4-10.1, subsection 1 of section 21-10-06, sections 40-40-06, 54-27-19.3, and 57-02-01, subdivision c of subsection 1 of section 57-02-08.1, subdivision b of subsection 2 of section 57-02-08.1, section 57-02-08.8, section 57-02-08.9 as amended by section 1 of Senate Bill No. 2201, as approved by the sixty-ninth legislative assembly, sections 57-02-08.10, 57-02-27, 57-02-27.1, 57-02-53, 57-09-04, 57-11-03, 57-12-06, 57-15-02.2, 57-15-14.2, and 57-20-07.1 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to funds invested by the state investment board, property tax definitions, the homestead tax credit and renters refund, the property tax credit for disabled veterans, the primary residence credit, property classifications, assessment and budget hearing notices to property owners, school district levies, and the property tax statement; to repeal sections 21-10-12 and 21-10-13 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to legacy fund definitions and the legacy earnings fund; to provide a statement of legislative intent; to provide for a legislative management study, to provide an appropriation; to provide an effective date; to provide an expiration date; and to declare an emergency.
HB 1168 would have created a new framework for using a portion of North Dakota’s legacy fund earnings for property tax relief and related infrastructure purposes. The bill establishes a legacy earnings fund, a legacy property tax relief fund, and a legacy earnings highway distribution fund. Under the proposal, the state treasurer would distribute legacy fund earnings every odd-numbered year, first to cover debt service for infrastructure financing, then to highway-related distributions, and then to the legacy property tax relief fund. The bill also repeals existing legacy fund definition provisions and directs the state investment board to include the new legacy earnings fund among the funds it invests.
A major component of the bill is a new primary residence certification and a primary residence property tax credit. The bill would create a certification process administered by the tax commissioner and county officials to determine whether a dwelling qualifies as a primary residence. It would then provide a $500 property tax credit, capped at $1,000, for qualifying primary residences, with detailed rules for ownership, trusts, mobile homes, nursing home absences, application deadlines, and county reimbursement. The bill also revises the homestead tax credit and renters refund thresholds, increases the disabled veteran homestead credit cap, and updates property tax statement requirements so taxpayers can see the amount of primary residence credit and the share funded by legacy fund earnings.
HB 1168 would also have changed several property tax administration rules. It redefines and clarifies property classifications, including primary residential property and nonprimary residential property, and adjusts valuation percentages for property tax purposes. The bill strengthens notice requirements for assessment increases and budget hearings, requires more detailed property tax statements, and imposes a new general limitation on property tax levies without voter approval, subject to specified exceptions for debt service, school levies, and certain constitutionally or statutorily authorized taxes. It also modifies school district levy authority and includes a legislative management study on improving the transparency of real estate tax statements.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly pro-tax-relief and pro-transparency, with the measure designed to channel legacy fund earnings back to taxpayers, especially homeowners. The bill’s structure suggests an effort to provide immediate relief while also creating a long-term funding mechanism and clearer public disclosure of how property taxes are calculated. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, but the bill ultimately failed, indicating it did not secure final legislative approval despite its broad policy scope.
The main points of contention likely centered on the size and use of legacy fund earnings, the creation of a new statewide property tax credit, and the new cap on local levy growth without voter approval. Local governments, school districts, and other taxing districts would likely have been concerned about reduced levy flexibility and the administrative burden of new certification, notice, and reimbursement procedures. At the same time, homeowners, renters eligible for refunds, disabled veterans, and taxpayers generally would have been the primary beneficiaries of the bill’s relief provisions.
HB 1168 would have significantly altered North Dakota property tax law by creating a new legacy-fund-based revenue stream for property tax relief and by adding a statewide primary residence credit administered through the tax commissioner and county officials. It would have changed valuation and classification rules, expanded notice requirements, revised homestead and veteran credits, and imposed a general limit on property tax levy growth without voter approval, while also requiring new property tax statement disclosures and county reimbursement procedures.
The bill appears to have been framed as a broad property tax relief and taxpayer transparency measure, with a clear emphasis on returning legacy fund earnings to residents and limiting local tax growth. Its policy direction is generally favorable to homeowners and taxpayers, but the absence of supporting votes or committee discussion, combined with its final failure, suggests it did not achieve sufficient consensus. The likely overall sentiment was supportive among tax-relief advocates and more cautious or negative among local government and school finance interests.
Likely points of contention included the diversion of legacy fund earnings, the fiscal impact of a large statewide credit and reimbursement program, and the restriction on local taxing districts’ ability to raise levies without voter approval. Counties, cities, townships, and school districts would likely have objected to reduced flexibility and added administrative requirements, while supporters would have emphasized homeowner relief, transparency, and taxpayer control. The bill’s broad reach across property tax administration, school levies, and state fund allocations made it a high-impact and potentially divisive proposal.