A concurrent resolution to repeal section 10 of article X of the Constitution of North Dakota, relating to the statewide property tax levy of one mill for support of the state medical center at the University of North Dakota; and to provide an effective date.
HCR3012 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would repeal section 10 of article X of the North Dakota Constitution. That section currently authorizes a statewide property tax levy of one mill to support the state medical center at the University of North Dakota. If approved by voters, the measure would remove that dedicated statewide levy from the constitution.
The resolution directs that the proposed repeal be submitted to North Dakota voters at the 2026 general election. It also sets an effective date for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2026, meaning the change would not take effect unless approved by the electorate and would apply prospectively to future tax years.
The bill would amend the state constitution by eliminating the legal basis for the one-mill statewide property tax levy dedicated to the UND state medical center. This would affect state tax law, local and statewide property tax administration, and the funding stream for the medical center at the University of North Dakota. Because it is a constitutional repeal, the measure would remove a permanent funding mechanism rather than simply changing a statute.
The available record shows the measure failed and does not include committee testimony or recorded debate, so there is no detailed discussion of support or opposition in the provided materials. The bill’s introduction by multiple legislators suggests some interest in advancing the repeal, but the lack of votes or transcripts makes the broader sentiment difficult to assess from the record alone.
The central point of contention is likely the tradeoff between reducing or eliminating a statewide property tax levy and preserving dedicated funding for the UND state medical center. Supporters would be expected to favor removing the tax burden or constitutional earmark, while opponents would likely argue that the levy provides stable support for an important medical and educational institution. No specific arguments from committee or floor debate are available in the provided materials.