Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Square Footage Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal to tax residences by square footage, not valuation, draws mixed reaction (HB 1474)
Summary
Representative Nathan Toman’s House Bill 1474 would replace residential ad valorem taxation with a square‑footage formula separating land and structure area. Proponents called it structural reform that ends valuation volatility; opponents warned the change would shift burdens, require large relief measures and needs study before implementation.
House Bill 1474, introduced by Representative Nathan Toman, would shift residential property taxation from market valuation to a square‑footage calculation that separates land area from above‑grade structure area.
Toman said the reform is intended to eliminate the “stealth” tax increases caused by rising valuations and to reduce the disincentive for homeowners to improve properties. He told the committee the square‑footage approach sits in section 18 of the draft and separates land and structure area so local budgets would be expressed as a per‑square‑foot charge rather than mills tied to valuation.
Supporters including Minot Council member Mike Blessum and Representative Ben Koppelman told the committee the proposal would increase transparency for local budgets and pressure local officials to justify dollar increases because “when we budget $24,000,000…you know that that’s up 1%.” Blessum said the idea forces local officials to be accountable and could reduce assessor workload over time.
Opponents and questioners raised the prospect of winners and losers: several witnesses and members noted the shift could increase bills on some lower‑valuation homes that are large in square footage or on acreage; Representative Ben Koppelman and others said the reform should be paired with substantial relief (one witness described a 70% relief concept) to avoid steep increases for some homeowners.
Committee members asked whether anywhere else uses square footage as the primary tax base; Toman said he had not found an implemented national model and agreed the change would be a structural, long‑term move requiring detailed transition work. Multiple witnesses suggested a study or phased approach before wholesale adoption.
Ending: The hearing generated significant debate about distributional effects and transition mechanics; proponents argued the plan reforms a valuation system that repeatedly consumes relief, while critics urged a study and explicit relief measures before any conversion occurs.
