[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6125985,"mediaKeyId","2674120-6443efae8a497a08a6a431e0a705408d","parentId",2674120,"title","Committee hears debate on limiting park-district bonding authority, email delivery of tax statements and interim study on property tax reporting","audioSeconds",2414,"startMs",376000,"endMs",2790000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674120-6443efae8a497a08a6a431e0a705408d&start=376&end=2790","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674120-6443efae8a497a08a6a431e0a705408d/thumbnail_376000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6125985/North-Dakota/Committee-hears-debate-on-limiting-park-district-bonding-authority-email-delivery-of-tax-statements-and-interim-study-on-property-tax-reporting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125985-f853f23fea4a84e8018e00542c4be1c0/orig.mp4?Expires=1770495044&Signature=e54kEvLAtOirfOK7Uad~JcqItJWO5u~jGqGvf3DjdLjEjb~KKw2uep7OBVZowAeS8B1PY6vbDAtGNFgUtHk0AImv4q3MlITXiLpeNF-Hai7wk5MMwLBLTsmIYFRhtlC8AlEz~Nm1uscUWCsRgZNffLiYmaWwE7v7ospD2iNFS143qhnnMH51T92ArL72tbaOSfeXsrWu~ana2YizFbxumbVVNZ9YeZHA6fwV6f3oMLxfotBMI9Tmn9kRG4WGon12qCJaaxXtsKHsXdABGfvRrq~YKMveagIMVS~NQF5a6UfULL8pRT7uHC-3cbv9jBgHkJ8d6WGRRG8brUSEtU4uTw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","North Dakota State Legislature","date","2025-03-18T00:00:00Z","article","The Senate Finance and Taxation Committee on Wednesday heard competing views on House Bill 1572, a measure that would (1) limit park-district expenditures that can be made without going to a public vote to 1% of assessed valuation or $15,000,000, (2) change the content and delivery options for property tax statements, including an opt-in email delivery option, and (3) reconstitute a legislative tax-reform advisory committee and require a report on the property-tax relief provided by the state.

Representative Jared Haggart, R‑District 20, introduced the bill and described two versions. He said the 3,000 version includes the 1% or $15,000,000 cap on park-district spending and changes to the property-tax statement; his 3,002 amendment collapses some reporting sections into an interim study, retains the email-delivery option as an opt‑in, and restores language so the legislative relief amount continues to be calculated for the biennium.

The measure drew support from the North Dakota Association of Counties, which backed the amended version and said a study could help streamline reporting and statutorily authorize email delivery. \"The opt‑in email option is appreciated,\" Linda Swajovic of the Association of Counties told the committee, but she warned that \"receipt verification on email...might not be a verifiable or realistic thing\" for some counties and noted many counties already allow taxpayers to view and print statements online.

Municipal interests and park districts opposed the proposed limit on bonding authority. Stephanie Ingebretsen of the North Dakota League of Cities said some park districts are members of the league and that cities share concerns about limits on bonding authority. Shannon Shute, executive director of the North Dakota Rec and Park Association, testified in opposition to Section 1 and said the association believes a $15,000,000 cap may be insufficient for large, multi‑phase projects. She told the committee the association recommends raising the cap to $30,000,000 to better accommodate construction-cost escalation and multi‑phase work.

Brock Leitz, director of finance for the Fargo Park District, outlined the practical impacts the cap would have in a large city. He said park districts are already treated differently in statute: \"North Dakota Century Code 21‑03‑04 spells out authority for municipalities ... later in statute 21‑03‑07 then carves out park districts separately and has park districts at a 1% limit rather than a 5% limit,\" Leitz said. He told the committee that Fargo’s total assessed valuation is about $8,500,000,000, so 1% would equal roughly $85,000,000 of bonding authority for the Fargo Park District; limiting that authority to $15,000,000 would significantly constrain locally elected park boards.

Leitz described recent Fargo projects funded in two bond issues totaling $78,000,000: a $44,000,000 issue for the Fargo Park Sports Center and Island Park pool renovation and a $34,000,000 second issue for a phase‑two expansion. He said the first bond carried roughly a 2.77% interest rate and the second about 4.07%, both 20‑year amortized issues. Leitz also described the statutory 60‑day public protest period for general‑obligation debt and said public outreach and private donations played a role in the Fargo projects; he reported receiving four public phone calls across those two bond efforts.

Representative Haggart and supporters emphasized the bill’s flexibility in the amended 3,002 draft and said the interim study is intended to bring stakeholders together — cities, counties, park districts and the tax department — to design consistent reporting and property‑tax statement language. Haggart said the original bill started at a $1,000,000 threshold before feedback prompted higher placeholders and the study approach.

Committee members pressed for data on how many park districts would be affected; witnesses said about five larger districts would be influenced (Fargo, Grand Forks, Bismarck, Minot and West Fargo). Committee members also asked the tax department and witnesses to provide outstanding general‑obligation debt and assessed‑valuation figures for the affected park districts to aid deliberations.

No formal committee vote was taken on House Bill 1572 at the hearing; the committee chair said members would wait for additional information from witnesses before taking action.

The hearing record includes debate on technical reporting and statutory language, the proposed bonding cap and the opt‑in email delivery for property tax statements. Proponents said the bill would improve transparency and modernize delivery; opponents said the $15,000,000 cap would unnecessarily constrain local authority and recommended a higher cap or further study.

The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 1572 and held the item for further information and possible future action.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Finance and Taxation Tuesday, Mar 18, 2025 8:55 AM - 10:36 AM","oneSentenceSummary","The Senate Finance and Taxation Committee on Wednesday heard competing views on House Bill 1572, a measure that would (1) limit park-district expenditures that can be made without going to a public vote to 1% of assessed valuation or $15,000,000, (2) change the content and delivery options for property tax statements, including an opt-in email delivery option, and (3) reconstitute a legislative tax-reform advisory committee and require a report on the property-tax relief provided by the state.","taxTitle","Finance and Taxation, Senate, Legislative, North Dakota","taxId",28904,"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},6125978,"Committee votes to not pass duplicate bill on agricultural assessment modifiers after sponsor cites identical Senate bill",1568,4268000,5836000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2674120-6443efae8a497a08a6a431e0a705408d&start=4268&end=5836","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2674120-6443efae8a497a08a6a431e0a705408d/thumbnail_4268000.jpg","/articles/6125978/North-Dakota/Committee-votes-to-not-pass-duplicate-bill-on-agricultural-assessment-modifiers-after-sponsor-cites-identical-Senate-bill","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6125978-0db7b4f7e1b3627be492f1105b1cae8f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770495044&Signature=GeUplcNDGCEr5rcyl~aIB~945a~eWp3BlO4Qxgt~MwPum1vsDkbV-uEByd~hzS1H4JFVdBAJEJrGYDBmkHPssVvfP9jAp9BnbdRPgAOyHBJQxbOTDTujb24a-Sil8an6VQw4YGf09tYCJ2povz1VKSNcPPsHwQteovSmwNbuJjMuFXd65F86Smq1BvYq2YAbU4TrZPgGWZ~i4G7h6ur03-yozjiDFnMKgrA7x1oUXWGCoj47oOttEGomQG76clIr62lGRKGG8LbrmUs6JyQk3j6KUrlYtCqiTLjiICmK34xEF8R-ud-y2dqb5sP5m12Nq2hC5f7zK2-qPPqrfbmbKw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Senate Finance and Taxation Committee on Wednesday heard support for House Bill 1508, a proposal to clarify that agricultural land assessments must take into account soil productivity, land use and applicable modifiers. Testimony came from producers and farm organizations who said inconsistent county application produced unfair disparities for landowners who straddle county lines.

Representative Porter introduced the bill on behalf of a constituent, Dale Johnson of Mandan, who testified that neighboring counties treat similar parcels differently. Johnson presented paired tax statements and soil‑productivity maps from Logan, Kidder and Emmons counties to show that the same or similar land was taxed at markedly different rates depending on whether it was classified and modified as cropland or pasture. He also cited county rental‑rate data showing pasture rents commonly run about 30–50% of cropland rent in the region.

Several agricultural organizations voiced support. A representative of the Stockmen's Association said the measure’s intent is consistent with a companion Senate measure; North Dakota Farmers Union and the North Dakota Soybean Growers Association also supported HB1508. Pete Hanover of the North Dakota Farm Bureau recounted a prior county assessment case in Burke County where outside contractors failed to apply modifiers correctly, producing sharp and erroneous reassessments.

Committee members were told that Senate Bill 2367 (referred to in testimony as Senate Bill 23‑67) already requires assessors to use soil classification, land use and modifiers; several witnesses said the Senate measure has passed both chambers and was on the governor’s desk. After that cross‑testimony, Senator Wallin moved a do‑not‑pass recommendation for House Bill 1508 on the ground it duplicates provisions already passed in Senate Bill 2367. Senator Powers seconded the motion. The committee clerk conducted a roll call and recorded affirmative votes to recommend do not pass; the chair announced the motion carried and asked Senator Wallin to carry the bill.

Committee members closed the hearing on House Bill 1508 after concluding the Senate bill satisfied the sponsor’s objective; staff and witnesses may provide written records and supporting materials to the file.","The Senate Finance and Taxation Committee heard testimony supporting House Bill 1508, which would require county assessors to apply soil productivity, land use and modifiers when assessing agricultural land. Witnesses said Senate Bill 2367 already contains the same requirement and the committee voted a do‑not‑pass recommendation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears debate on limiting park-district bonding authority, email delivery of tax statements and interim study on property tax reporting

Committee votes to not pass duplicate bill on agricultural assessment modifiers after sponsor cites identical Senate bill