Committee hears debate on limiting park-district bonding authority, email delivery of tax statements and interim study on property tax reporting

The Senate Finance and Taxation Committee on Wednesday heard competing views on House Bill 1572, a measure that would (1) limit park-district expenditures that can be made without going to a public vote to 1% of assessed valuation or $15,000,000, (2) change the content and delivery options for property tax statements, including an opt-in email delivery option, and (3) reconstitute a legislative tax-reform advisory committee and require a report on the property-tax relief provided by the state.

Representative Jared Haggart, R‑District 20, introduced the bill and described two versions. He said the 3,000 version includes the 1% or $15,000,000 cap on park-district spending and changes to the property-tax statement; his 3,002 amendment collapses some reporting sections into an interim study, retains the email-delivery option as an opt‑in, and restores language so the legislative relief amount continues to be calculated for the biennium.

The measure drew support from the North Dakota Association of Counties, which backed the amended version and said a study could help streamline reporting and statutorily authorize email delivery. "The opt‑in email option is appreciated," Linda Swajovic of the Association of Counties told the committee, but she warned that "receipt verification on email...might not be a verifiable or realistic thing" for some counties and noted many counties already allow taxpayers to view and print statements online.

Municipal interests and park districts opposed the proposed limit on bonding authority. Stephanie Ingebretsen of the North Dakota League of Cities said some park districts are members of the league and that cities share concerns about limits on bonding authority. Shannon Shute, executive director of the North Dakota Rec and Park Association, testified in opposition to Section 1 and said the association believes a $15,000,000 cap may be insufficient for large, multi‑phase projects. She told the committee the association recommends raising the cap to $30,000,000 to better accommodate construction-cost escalation and multi‑phase work.

Brock Leitz, director of finance for the Fargo Park District, outlined the practical impacts the cap would have in a large city. He said park districts are already treated differently in statute: "North Dakota Century Code 21‑03‑04 spells out authority for municipalities ... later in statute 21‑03‑07 then carves out park districts separately and has park districts at a 1% limit rather than a 5% limit," Leitz said. He told the committee that Fargo’s total assessed valuation is about $8,500,000,000, so 1% would equal roughly $85,000,000 of bonding authority for the Fargo Park District; limiting that authority to $15,000,000 would significantly constrain locally elected park boards.

Leitz described recent Fargo projects funded in two bond issues totaling $78,000,000: a $44,000,000 issue for the Fargo Park Sports Center and Island Park pool renovation and a $34,000,000 second issue for a phase‑two expansion. He said the first bond carried roughly a 2.77% interest rate and the second about 4.07%, both 20‑year amortized issues. Leitz also described the statutory 60‑day public protest period for general‑obligation debt and said public outreach and private donations played a role in the Fargo projects; he reported receiving four public phone calls across those two bond efforts.

Representative Haggart and supporters emphasized the bill’s flexibility in the amended 3,002 draft and said the interim study is intended to bring stakeholders together — cities, counties, park districts and the tax department — to design consistent reporting and property‑tax statement language. Haggart said the original bill started at a $1,000,000 threshold before feedback prompted higher placeholders and the study approach.

Committee members pressed for data on how many park districts would be affected; witnesses said about five larger districts would be influenced (Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck, Minot and West Fargo). Committee members also asked the tax department and witnesses to provide outstanding general‑obligation debt and assessed‑valuation figures for the affected park districts to aid deliberations.

No formal committee vote was taken on House Bill 1572 at the hearing; the committee chair said members would wait for additional information from witnesses before taking action.

The hearing record includes debate on technical reporting and statutory language, the proposed bonding cap and the opt‑in email delivery for property tax statements. Proponents said the bill would improve transparency and modernize delivery; opponents said the $15,000,000 cap would unnecessarily constrain local authority and recommended a higher cap or further study.

The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 1572 and held the item for further information and possible future action.