Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ag Assessment Modifiers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves due‑pass recommendation for bill clarifying agricultural assessment modifiers
Summary
The committee recommended a due pass for Senate Bill 23‑67 (assessment modifiers for agricultural property). Sponsors and witnesses said the bill clarifies how assessors must use modifiers such as rocks and other land characteristics to adjust agricultural valuations; the motion passed unanimously by roll call.
Senate Bill 23‑67, a bill that clarifies the use of modifiers in the agricultural assessment process, received a due‑pass recommendation from the House Finance and Taxation Committee following a committee vote.
Senator Yana Meridahl introduced the measure as a technical clarification of existing law to ensure assessors apply modifiers (for example, surface obstacles such as rocks) when valuing agricultural land. “We wanted to clarify…how that is done by the assessors and by the equalization director of tax equalization,” Meridahl said, describing scenarios where adjacent fields with similar soils receive markedly different rental values because of surface modifiers.
Supporters including the North Dakota Farm Bureau, the Stockmen’s Association, the North Dakota Corn Growers and the North Dakota Farmers Union told the committee the bill simply codifies the mandatory use of modifiers—factors that increase or decrease the productive value of a parcel—so that counties apply consistent adjustments and taxpayers can petition for modifier changes. Pete Hanover (Farm Bureau) described past problems where outside contractors altered modifiers in one county and produced inconsistent assessments.
Megan Gordon of Legislative Council appeared in a neutral capacity and said the bill clarifies existing statute; she and witnesses discussed that any fiscal impact would be local and that the state supervisor of assessment is involved when counties submit modifier schedules for approval. Committee members asked whether the bill carried a fiscal note; Gordon said valuation changes might shift tax burdens within a taxing district but she did not expect a statewide fiscal impact.
Representative (committee motion) moved to recommend a due pass; another committee member seconded. A roll call followed with an affirmative vote from members present; the clerk recorded unanimous support on the motion to recommend a due pass on Senate Bill 23‑67.
Ending: The committee voted to recommend a due pass on Senate Bill 23‑67. Committee members discussed but declined to place the measure on a consent calendar, saying members should review bills before a floor vote.
