Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill to clarify use of soil modifiers in agricultural assessments
Summary
Senate Bill 2,367 would clarify when and how counties apply assessment modifiers (rocks, trees, water, slope) to agricultural land values; supporters said the change would correct inconsistent county practices, and the Department of Taxation provided background on how modifiers are set and applied.
Senators on the Finance and Taxation Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 2,367, a bill the sponsor described as clarifying county discretion over “modifiers” used when assessing agricultural land value.
Senator Yana Myrtle, sponsor of the bill, said the bill “cleans up the language and clarifies what discretion [counties] have to apply or to set the modifiers for each county,” and that the change is meant to reduce burden on property owners who had in some counties been required to submit applications periodically to retain certain modifiers.
Supporters including the North Dakota Farm Bureau and the North Dakota Stockmen’s Association said inconsistent application of modifiers has created fairness concerns in some counties and that the bill would preserve the productivity formula and the intended use of modifiers such as rocks, slope, water and trees.
Shelly Myers, State Supervisor of Assessments at the Tax Department, explained current practice: counties decide annually which modifiers to use, submit them to the department, and the department approves them for the year. She told the committee 18 of 53 counties currently do not use modifiers at all. Myers confirmed some counties use an owner application process to document modifier eligibility and said the bill’s language would eliminate those application requirements in favor of county and soils‑committee determinations; she was uncertain whether that would increase or decrease uniformity across all counties.
Committee members asked about timing and effective dates; one tax director noted that an effective date listed as 12/31/2024 would not give equalization officers adequate time to comply and suggested adjusting the date so counties can implement the change.
Witnesses asked the committee to move the bill forward for consideration; the committee closed the hearing without immediate action to allow members to consider the bill further and to consult the tax department on implementation timing.
