Cass County staff warn 3% proposed property-tax cap could force multimillion-dollar cuts

Brandy Madriga, a county staff member who presented the forecast, told the Cass County Board of Commissioners that multiple bills in the North Dakota Legislature include “a recurring 3% cap on taxing districts.” The presentation laid out how the cap would affect Cass County’s budget, staffing and services.

The county’s fiscal briefing showed property tax is the county’s primary non‑government revenue source, with the 2025 budget projecting $57,100,000 in property‑tax receipts that fund county operations, roads and bridges, senior services, public‑safety communications and capital work. Madriga said the county’s conservative approach—reducing its mill levy from about 57.42 to 45 mills as valuations rose—relies on the ability to adjust levies and spending annually.

Madriga warned that modeling the 2025 budget under a 3% cap would produce an ongoing revenue shortfall of roughly $4,000,000 a year. The presentation called out one large driver of near‑term cost: the jail expansion. The county funded the project—an added pod that increases capacity from about 348 beds to 540—largely with ARPA and CARES funds and expects the expansion to add roughly $4,700,000 in annual operating costs (including about $3,000,000 in ongoing payroll for 29 new full‑time positions and about $1,700,000 for operations and maintenance).

Sheriff John, who participated by phone, pressed for confirmation of the forecast figures, asking, “the 4,700,000, deficit that you explained each year was that… with the hiring of our additional 29 that we need to run the new pod?” Madriga answered that the $4.7 million includes about $3 million in recurring payroll for 29 FTEs and about $1.7 million in ongoing operations and maintenance.

Commissioners discussed outreach and education for residents about the potential fiscal impact. One commissioner stressed the importance of public awareness of capacity and staffing needs at the jail and offered to help share the county’s financial materials. Madriga and county staff said they would make presentation materials available to commissioners via email.

The presentation also summarized where property tax bills are levied: roughly half of an average property owner’s tax liability goes to local school districts, 19–37% to cities or townships and ambulance districts, and the county’s share averages about 6% for urban properties and about 24% for rural parcels. Madriga noted that state mandates and limited fee authority constrain the county’s ability to offset revenue losses with other local fees.

The board did not take formal action on property‑tax legislation during the meeting; staff said they will continue to monitor bills including the measure identified in the presentation as “House Bill 11 76.” Commissioners said they will continue to work with legislative partners and communicate to the public as proposals emerge during the session.