Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Taxable Valuation Smoothing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor proposes 3‑year rolling average for taxable valuation to blunt year‑to‑year spikes; legal questions remain
Summary
Representative Austin Schauer (testified as Austin Shower) introduced House Bill 15 59 to smooth residential taxable valuation using a three‑year rolling average. Testimony praised the idea as a circuit breaker for sudden valuation spikes; legislative counsel and tax department raised potential constitutional issues.
Representative Austin Schauer presented House Bill 15 59, which would change the way taxable valuation of residential property is calculated by using a rolling three‑year average rather than tying it to a single year’s full market value. "We believe the same strategy can be used in the taxable valuation of residential property," Schauer said, describing the change as a way to "smooth the year by year increase" and blunt large year‑to‑year jumps in individual homeowners’ tax bills.
Levi Bachmeier, business manager for West Fargo Public Schools, testified remotely in support, saying residents’ frustration most often stems from sudden increases in individual liability tied to valuation spikes. "The overall frustration ... does not stem from overall revenue growth year over year, ... but rather the year over year increases in their personal tax liability," Bachmeier said, and described how a smoothing approach would reduce one‑year shocks while preserving market signals.
Several testifiers — including Aaron Burst of the Association of Counties — urged not to kill the proposal midstream and recommended further legal review or an AG opinion. Charles Dende, general counsel for the Tax Department, told the committee he was not the best person to opine on constitutionality and recommended consultation with legislative counsel, but noted generally that statutes govern definitions of true and full value and assessed value.
Committee members repeatedly raised constitutional questions during the hearing about whether the state constitution’s assessed‑value and true‑and‑full‑value requirements would permit the proposed smoothing. Chairman Hedlund said legislative council previously advised that the change likely would not pass constitutional muster, though Charles Dende suggested statutory definitions could provide options. The committee closed the hearing and said it would seek further legal guidance before moving forward.
No formal committee action was recorded at the hearing.
