Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Fee Special Assessments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to allow infrastructure fee in place of special assessments
Summary
The Senate Finance and Taxation Committee heard House Bill 13‑89, which would allow local governments to replace some special assessments with a recurring infrastructure fee placed on utility bills, requiring voter approval and limiting commercial charges to up to twice residential fees.
Good morning: the Senate Finance and Taxation Committee heard House Bill 13‑89 on whether local governments could use a recurring infrastructure fee on utility bills to replace special assessments for street maintenance and similar projects.
Representative Jason Dockter (R‑District 7) told the committee the bill is intended as an alternative financing tool for political subdivisions. He said the fee would typically appear on a water or utility bill as a flat monthly charge (an example used in testimony was about $35 for an average home) and that commercial customers could be charged up to twice the residential amount. Dockter said any fee must be put to a public vote and that greenfield (new‑development) special assessments would remain in place.
The bill drew bipartisan questions from senators about how an infrastructure fee would be calculated, whether it could be used citywide or only for affected neighborhoods, and whether it would allow cities to circumvent property‑tax caps by shifting costs to utility bills. Dockter and witnesses said the measure was intended to give local governments an optional tool rather than to mandate change.
Witnesses supporting the bill described local experience and studies. Dustin Gervlow, speaking in a personal capacity and identifying himself as a member of the Bismarck Special Assessments Task Force, said Bismarck produced a study and that one aim is to convert infrequent, large special assessment bills into predictable monthly charges so households can budget. Jason Tomonic, city administrator for Bismarck, said the city uses data‑driven road‑condition assessments and a capital improvement plan to prioritize work and that the proposed fee would let the city smooth funding for maintenance that otherwise can be stalled when property owners protest special‑assessment districts.
Opponents, including Corey Peterson of the League of Cities, said amendments to the bill had departed from its original, narrowly technical intent and made the draft unworkable in its present form. Peterson and others urged restoring the bill to the original language, and cited concerns that added protest periods and new procedural language would complicate implementation and increase costs for cities seeking voter approval.
Other concerns raised during testimony included: whether the fee would be applied uniformly across a city or targeted to districts; how new development (greenfield projects) would be treated; whether school districts and park districts could use their dedicated mill levies to participate; and whether funds designated for special assessments could be diverted into general funds under current local authority. Multiple witnesses said the drafting history and prior amendments had changed the bill’s intent and recommended clarifying language.
No formal action or vote was taken by the committee during the hearing; senators asked questions and received technical explanations from municipal and county representatives. The committee closed the hearing on HB 13‑89 without voting and moved on to later agenda items.
Ending: Several witnesses urged amendment to restore the bill’s original, narrow correction and to clarify how school and park districts can participate. The bill record shows the chief remaining issues are (1) whether procedural changes added in the House should be reversed and (2) how to ensure the fee cannot be used to mask local spending increases that would otherwise be constrained by property‑tax limits.
