[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6342414,"mediaKeyId","2255137-ede08e8e4ad60df27b935afb4fb45200","parentId",2255137,"title","House Finance and Taxation Committee: votes on a package of tax and levy bills","audioSeconds",6578,"startMs",1982000,"endMs",8560000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255137-ede08e8e4ad60df27b935afb4fb45200&start=1982&end=8560","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255137-ede08e8e4ad60df27b935afb4fb45200/thumbnail_1982000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6342414/North-Dakota/House-Finance-and-Taxation-Committee-votes-on-a-package-of-tax-and-levy-bills","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342414-c03df17cf502640d31189183b70c6886/orig.mp4?Expires=1771062492&Signature=J746J8REdf6M3i8kX-XooH0qu9sjfakXzGZdqb5IY8p6R4Ar-XigaPRDhrp9zAb1NJ2oSrHCgUeElWeyONuKsXFInHQBPsvqqNFhZWJBzNQoGM-UqCn~jvQ6-OGxOaTl3ZYBv9O8oOGbYxdUr-juJOhyRkrTBYTOOGUlbfvhLP1kKJxQRiWxyGSTV9Sdz9gx82yssBoM2eGmQwx3JINFUKCsbLmhYUpZj1uDXi~GZ9LFTnwyX3lpgngjla~IY~7hp3PEnPne18ez2KRlRDjc8deG5TdZ85quceOM8hzk~zctstoyfMp4yqGSfUP6wudYjk4my69SwUjpaGuwEzzlag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-02-10T00:00:00Z","article","The House Finance and Taxation Committee considered a range of tax and levy bills and recorded multiple outcomes, including do‑not‑pass recommendations, a study referral and several committee do‑pass actions.

Key outcomes recorded in the committee transcript:

- House Bill 13‑35 (homestead bill) — Committee motion: do not pass. Roll call recorded as 9 yes, 4 no, 1 not voting (record phrasing in transcript: \"9 4 1\").

- House Bill 13‑43 (priority of tax liens) — Committee motion: do not pass. Roll call recorded as 11 yes, 2 no, 1 absent (transcript summary: \"11 2 1\").

- House Bill 13‑53 (levy limitation tied to CPI) — Committee motion: do not pass. Roll call recorded in the transcript as 11 yes, 2 no, 1 absent (\"11 2 1\").

- House Bill 13‑90 (primary residence reduction) — Committee motion: do not pass. Roll call recorded as 11 yes, 2 no, 1 absent (\"11 2 1\").

- House Bill 14‑28 (sales tax exemption for used clothing, limited to nonprofits) — Committee motion: do not pass. The committee recorded the vote as 10 yes, 3 no, 1 present/abstain (transcript notes \"10 3 1\").

- House Bill 14‑74 (square‑footage reform measure) — Committee moved the bill into study (legislative study language to be drafted). The committee later recorded a do‑pass as amended for study referral with a roll of 13 yes, 0 no, 1 absent (\"13 0 1\"). Members discussed study scope and asked Legislative Council to prepare draft language.

- House Bill 15‑34 (valuation cap amendment) — Committee adopted amendment 02001 and recommended do pass as amended. The transcript recorded a roll call of 9 yes, 4 no, 1 abstain or similar (the committee recorded the motion as passing; transcript lines show mixed tallies with a final recorded passage). Legislative staff will reconcile constitutional and home‑rule concerns raised during debate.

- House Bill 15‑59 (smoothing/valuation reform) — Committee motion: do not pass. Roll call recorded as 12 yes, 1 no, 1 absent (\"12 1 1\") in the transcript.

Several other bills were discussed at length in committee hearings and several committee members urged study or further drafting before floor consideration. Committee members repeatedly asked legislative staff and the tax department to prepare updated fiscal notes and draft study language to ensure consistent statutory cross‑references and to protect voter notice and local‑control processes.

These committee actions reflect committee‑level recommendations only; final outcomes will depend on floor votes and any further conference committee action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","69th Legislative Assembly - House Finance and Taxation Mon, Feb 10, 2025 9:00 AM-12:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The committee took action on multiple bills: it voted do not pass on several homestead and levy bills, advanced a utility‑fee bill as amended, moved a square‑footage reform bill to study, and recommended passage of a caps bill with amended language. Vote tallies recorded in the transcript are listed below.","taxTitle","Finance and Taxation, House of Representatives, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28891,"location","North Dakota","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342419,"Committee amends House Bill 1389 to preserve protest rights and cap commercial utility fees; bill sent forward",536,3474000,4010000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255137-ede08e8e4ad60df27b935afb4fb45200&start=3474&end=4010","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255137-ede08e8e4ad60df27b935afb4fb45200/thumbnail_3474000.jpg","/articles/6342419/North-Dakota/Committee-amends-House-Bill-1389-to-preserve-protest-rights-and-cap-commercial-utility-fees-bill-sent-forward","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342419-d75a56cb221b29d5e6ae1a6b57e64611/orig.mp4?Expires=1771062492&Signature=Yrf4g5V1MHmpNHCbrkwcVcz3JHOnsGiM~7k4MVk-DyU97ZEztkjwh~IVK1nlsA8WnQNCOcAhB5X44rnWhq3csT5bPqmIbdOXb23RcIqKGLZ9qi1D5xvHzkpUiiGjp2tV4YqAvIQFhHxW6JbxIFfFUuUOH-RBByAJvmqa2AoW6egt59eGtDcv7cz4ZPS3wQt8gv~g-UemPJx~8zRhsGURpqGBCB-l6WcrZC8J8iRiPdw9gXgNS711EEBB2z9oT2M6ASfYgaE4O4ICtyvH9GtDypArGqp2YCjhvrZD78Ly4RzQFtr1gyBX6L-NjoliGvIava8vuy4ZjlyPQ0lboor7NA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Porter offered an amendment to House Bill 1389 that would preserve citizen protest and hearing rights for project areas when a city or county elects to use a voter‑approved utility fee in place of traditional special assessments, and would limit commercial utility fees to no more than twice the residential rate.

Porter told the committee the amendment keeps the public‑input elements currently attached to special assessments and does not change how utility fees are collected; \"What this amendment does is it maintains some of those citizen rights inside of a project area,\" he said, describing the public hearing and protest process and the cap on commercial rates.

Representative Steiner asked whether the proposal improperly constrained local control if a city believed it needed a higher commercial rate; Porter replied commercial property owners do not get to vote in those local referenda and added that guardrails were therefore appropriate.

The committee adopted amendment 01001 on voice vote and then approved a \"do pass\" recommendation for House Bill 13‑89 as amended. The roll call recorded on the transcript for the bill as amended was 11 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain (recorded as 11‑2‑1). Porter moved and Representative Olsen seconded the due‑pass motion.

During the discussion members clarified that the bill does not change levy caps and that the utility fee is a local tool voters could approve; Representative Doctor described it as \"another tool in the toolbox\" and said he expected limited statewide uptake because local voters must approve the change.

The committee carried the amended bill forward; members asked legislative staff and tax department staff to ensure statutory language and local‑control implications were clear for floor consideration.","An amendment to House Bill 1389 preserved public hearing and protest rights for special‑assessment‑style projects funded via a voter‑approved utility fee, and added a cap making commercial utility fees no more than twice residential rates; the committee approved the amendment and recommended the bill pass as amended.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6342424,"Committee trims House Bill 1168 to 10‑mill property tax buydown and advances measure",1258,637000,1895000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2255137-ede08e8e4ad60df27b935afb4fb45200&start=637&end=1895","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2255137-ede08e8e4ad60df27b935afb4fb45200/thumbnail_637000.jpg","/articles/6342424/North-Dakota/Committee-trims-House-Bill-1168-to-10mill-property-tax-buydown-and-advances-measure","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6342424-d46949b313f118f703b1632aa7222c93/orig.mp4?Expires=1771062492&Signature=ZPiiAEeXDOK4iYm8LMiZdrNvRuIO-SK1ZxAKLVNydlU0hJAHddmO5bNofHQeR4aLCu7HwH1lAJNtthTnl8fml94cAQb153q33l4f76K~L6uP3vQqh5k7ht35oCBlDiJm4jCSpMlgyD2tYvm9hqYFnBb-SekK-Mc5xtF2w12v3ZsaRLBvc9BOAmGcZYAj0g1qA7OYd~M831nmHSkRla8Fl24fO-OIylww2xJPERg-PGNktZNiOmOSQhFYYWV7QNgcYvlQsDMoBaqPtwMf2FVVPR888mqzyTLqNtDdqVP9NfPsuwqkxD1OWKGX8PoBvEW~fHtA64AAO1sNINOhJ6Ho~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Finance and Taxation Committee Chairman Hedlund on Thursday advanced House Bill 1168 after the committee adopted an amendment that cuts the bill's mill‑levy buydown to 10 mills.

Representative Lausser, the bill's sponsor, told the committee the amendment before members would change his earlier 30‑mill proposal to a smaller buy‑down and that he planned to return in a later session for additional relief. \"The amendment that I'm bringing before your committee would be a 30 mil buy down for all property types,\" Representative Lausser said when presenting his initial change; later amendments reduced that to 10 mills.

The committee discussed fiscal estimates and statutory interaction: committee members and staff referenced earlier fiscal notes, school district mill caps and where the bill's language fits in the code. Representative Lausser described earlier estimates that a 60‑mill buyout would have produced a fiscal note around $787,000,000 and said a 30‑mill, all‑property approach seemed likely to cost about $360–365,000,000 based on informal tallies and comparison to a senate bill he cited.

Members asked how the change would affect levy limitations and whether school district mills were included. Representative Lausser said the bill does not alter the separate statutory limits that apply to school districts; \"So everywhere where it said 60, we're changing it to 30,\" he said while explaining the drafting that originally reduced a 60‑mill cap to 30 in the text then later to 10 after amendment.

Representative Porter moved a further amendment to reduce the buy‑down from 30 mills to 10 mills, saying a 10‑mill option—estimated by him at about $120,000,000 using a $12,000,000 per‑mill rough figure—was more likely to be considered alongside other property tax relief measures. The committee adopted the 10‑mill amendment on a roll call vote recorded in the transcript as 13 yes, 1 no, 0 absent. The committee then recommended a \"do pass\" on House Bill 1168 with the 10‑mill buy‑down; that committee recommendation was recorded later in the transcript as 12 yes, 1 no, 1 abstain.

Tax department and education staff answered drafting questions. Charles Dendy, general counsel for the tax department, told members he could not resolve all school‑funding interactions and recommended policymakers consult Department of Public Instruction staff for precise effects on school funding language and mill‑count references. Amy Kopas of the North Dakota Council of Educational Leaders (NDCEL) reviewed where earlier buy‑downs changed the statutory mill totals and confirmed wording adjustments were required in section references when altering the mill counts.

The committee debated whether the bill could prompt renewed ballot measures and whether a smaller buydown would blunt that risk; Representative Steiner asked whether sponsors in Minot would consider the smaller buy‑down sufficient to avoid returning to voters, and Representative Lausser replied he was not overly concerned at this stage and preferred to see the final legislative package before predicting voter responses.

The committee recorded votes on the amendments and the final committee recommendation and carried the bill forward with the 10‑mill change for further consideration in the legislative process.

Votes at the committee level do not itself enact law; subsequent floor action and any conference with the senate will determine final text and fiscal notes.","The House Finance and Taxation Committee amended House Bill 1168 to reduce a proposed mill‑levy buydown to 10 mills, approved the change by roll call and recommended the bill for passage with that change. Sponsors and tax officials discussed fiscal notes and how the measure would interact with existing school mill limits.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

House Finance and Taxation Committee: votes on a package of tax and levy bills

Committee amends House Bill 1389 to preserve protest rights and cap commercial utility fees; bill sent forward

Committee trims House Bill 1168 to 10‑mill property tax buydown and advances measure