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.
HB1534 would add a new section to North Dakota Century Code chapter 57-02 to cap the taxable valuation of an individual parcel of property at no more than a 3% increase from the prior year, unless the increase is attributable to new improvements that were not previously included in the valuation. The cap would apply even if the property is sold or transferred, so a change in ownership would not by itself reset taxable valuation growth.
The bill also creates a mechanism for exceeding the 3% limit if voters in the affected taxing district approve a ballot measure at a statewide general or primary election. Any voter-approved increase would be limited to no more than four taxable years at a time. The measure would take effect for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024, and would prohibit cities and counties from using home rule authority to alter or override the new rule.
If enacted, HB1534 would have amended state property tax law by imposing a statewide limit on annual increases in taxable valuation for individual parcels, shifting some valuation growth control from assessors to a statutory cap. It would have affected property owners, local taxing districts, and county/city assessment practices by restricting how quickly taxable values could rise and by requiring voter approval for exceptions. The bill also would have limited local government flexibility by barring home rule modifications of the new valuation cap.
There is no committee transcript or recorded vote detail available in the provided materials, so the bill’s sentiment can only be inferred from its text and final status. The proposal appears to have been aimed at property tax relief and predictability for taxpayers, but it ultimately failed on April 15, 2025. The lack of recorded discussion in the provided context means there is no documented committee sentiment to summarize beyond the bill’s unsuccessful outcome.
The central point of contention likely would have been the bill’s broad restriction on taxable valuation growth and its effect on local revenue capacity. Supporters would likely favor the 3% cap as a taxpayer protection and a way to limit sudden property tax increases, while opponents would likely argue it could constrain local governments, schools, and other taxing districts by limiting valuation growth and requiring elections for higher increases. The bill’s prohibition on city and county home rule overrides also suggests a possible tension between statewide tax policy and local control.