Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessed Value Cap topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rep. Doctor proposes 3% annual cap on assessed valuation growth; advocates and counties weigh in
Summary
Representative Jason Doctor’s House Bill 15 34 would cap assessed‑value growth at 3% per year for tax calculation purposes; supporters said it offers predictability for local governments while opponents and staff raised constitutional and implementation questions.
Representative Jason Doctor presented House Bill 15 34, which would limit the annual increase in the valuation used for tax calculations to 3% per year and establish a cost basis that rises at that rate for tax purposes. "If this concept would go forward ... the cost basis would start on the taxable value and every year that cost basis would only go up 3%," Doctor said in committee.
Linda Swankovic of the North Dakota Association of Counties explained how the cap would operate in practice, using a $200,000 example to show lower tax growth over a ten‑year period under a 3% cap compared with a 5% market increase. She said the measure was effectively another circuit breaker to limit dramatic valuation‑driven tax increases.
Supporters including Representative Robin Wise, the Association of Counties and the North Dakota Farm Bureau testified in favor, saying the change would provide planning certainty for counties and rural jurisdictions and distribute relief more evenly across classes of property. Representative Wise said the cap "is the most fair, particularly for our rural districts." Opponents and committee members raised legal questions about whether limits on valuation at the top of the formula would pass constitutional muster, and Chairman Hedlund said legislative counsel and the tax department have advised caution on how the constitutional requirement for true and full valuation interacts with caps.
Committee members asked about treatment of new construction and remodeling; witnesses said new construction would establish a new cost basis at the time of construction. The committee closed the hearing after testimony and discussion but did not take a vote at this session.
