Primary Residence Credit?

tikkalover

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Posts
8,947
Likes
2,722
Points
808
Location
Minot
It’s a maximum of 3% on your current property tax. BUT they take the value up on your property to get the extra taxes they want for the upcoming year. There are no laws in place say that they can’t increase your property value.
 
Last edited:


eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
14,004
Likes
1,037
Points
553
Location
williston
It’s a maximum of 3% on your current property tax. BUT they take the value up on your property to get the extra taxes they want for the upcoming year. There are no laws are in place say that they can’t increase your property value.
So in a nutshell they can only increase what you pay by 3% each year. That’s how I understood it. Doesn’t matter what they do with your valuation they can still only raise “what you pay” by 3%
 

Twitch

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 14, 2015
Posts
2,916
Likes
1,092
Points
483
Location
Mandan
So in a nutshell they can only increase what you pay by 3% each year. That’s how I understood it. Doesn’t matter what they do with your valuation they can still only raise “what you pay” by 3%
Pretty sure the 3% doesn’t apply at all to increases in home valuations, so that’s how they’ll continue to raise your liability without “raising property taxes” more than 3%
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
14,004
Likes
1,037
Points
553
Location
williston
That’s all a moot point if they can’t raise what you owe from year to year by more than 3%. They can raise your valuation by 100k but it will only increase your tax 3%
 


Wally World

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2023
Posts
1,187
Likes
1,775
Points
423
That’s all a moot point if they can’t raise what you owe from year to year by more than 3%. They can raise your valuation by 100k but it will only increase your tax 3%
Keep telling yourself that and then check this years new tax statement! Do some research and you may find that the 3% Cap is not for individual homes but for the local taxing entity. as per House Bill 1176 passed in 2025. Your neighbor's house could go up 1% and yours could go up 5% 💰 to be in compliance with the new law as long as the total is capped at 3%. That's why I said earlier that you better go buddy up to the taxman. ...muahaha...That's how the system works!
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
14,004
Likes
1,037
Points
553
Location
williston
Keep telling yourself that and then check this years new tax statement! Do some research and you may find that the 3% Cap is not for individual homes but for the local taxing entity. as per House Bill 1176 passed in 2025. Your neighbor's house could go up 1% and yours could go up 5% 💰 to be in compliance with the new law as long as the total is capped at 3%. That's why I said earlier that you better go buddy up to the taxman. ...muahaha...That's how the system works!
Very interesting. So in essence the legislature sold us out again. No surprise. And you wonder why measure 1 passed lol.
 

agriffith

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 17, 2015
Posts
155
Likes
123
Points
190
Haha, love this response.
The kids will all get gobbled up by the boggiety man
It's not always about the "boggiety man". After the $1600 credit last year, my real estate taxes were about $237.00. Until someone can show me it won't cost my wife & I more than that, I will vote no. Someone just needs to come up with a solid plan and people will come around. In my opinion, just eliminating it and depending upon our legislature to handle it isn't a good solution.
 


johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
22,080
Likes
8,889
Points
963
Location
Dickinson
It's not always about the "boggiety man". After the $1600 credit last year, my real estate taxes were about $237.00. Until someone can show me it won't cost my wife & I more than that, I will vote no. Someone just needs to come up with a solid plan and people will come around. In my opinion, just eliminating it and depending upon our legislature to handle it isn't a good solution.
You lucked out, after the credit we received it was still higher than what we paid just 4 years earlier.

Agreed there needs to be a plan, but as long as we keep bending over the plan will not transpire.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
14,004
Likes
1,037
Points
553
Location
williston
You lucked out, after the credit we received it was still higher than what we paid just 4 years earlier.

Agreed there needs to be a plan, but as long as we keep bending over the plan will not transpire.
This is proof that the legislature knows exactly what they’re doing. They’re making it look like they’re doing something when they really aren’t. Until we eliminate property taxes they will continue to bend us over. I mean my god look at the cash this state has hoarded away. 50% of our taxes go to schools which is supposed to be all funded by the common schools land trust. Which has billions of dollars in the fund. It’s totally asinine
 

onyxtern73

New member
Joined
Nov 9, 2026
Posts
1
Likes
2
Points
6
It's not always about the "boggiety man". After the $1600 credit last year, my real estate taxes were about $237.00. Until someone can show me it won't cost my wife & I more than that, I will vote no. Someone just needs to come up with a solid plan and people will come around. In my opinion, just eliminating it and depending upon our legislature to handle it isn't a good solution.

$237 is a pretty low bar to beat, but "we'll sort it out later" was never much of a sales pitch. A replacement plan would have made the vote a lot less tense.
 

NDSportsman

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Posts
3,999
Likes
1,881
Points
553
Location
East Central ND
It's not always about the "boggiety man". After the $1600 credit last year, my real estate taxes were about $237.00. Until someone can show me it won't cost my wife & I more than that, I will vote no. Someone just needs to come up with a solid plan and people will come around. In my opinion, just eliminating it and depending upon our legislature to handle it isn't a good solution.
So next year it's $313 and then the following year it's $429 and so on......where's your pissed off line at?
 


Sluggo

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 14, 2015
Posts
2,967
Likes
1,119
Points
503
Location
Bismarck
$237 is a pretty low bar to beat, but "we'll sort it out later" was never much of a sales pitch. A replacement plan would have made the vote a lot less tense.
People that wanted a plan don’t really understand the process from what I learned. The measure that we voted on was a constitutional change which said “thou shall not charge a tax on property”. Then if that passes, the legislature would determine the plan. The constitution will never contain the plan. It will always be a 2 step process.
Let me know if my understanding is incorrect.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
14,004
Likes
1,037
Points
553
Location
williston
People that wanted a plan don’t really understand the process from what I learned. The measure that we voted on was a constitutional change which said “thou shall not charge a tax on property”. Then if that passes, the legislature would determine the plan. The constitution will never contain the plan. It will always be a 2 step process.
Let me know if my understanding is incorrect.
It’s not as bad or complicated as one would think. First off they could do what they’re supposed to do and replace the half of all property taxes collected that goes to school with money from the common schools land trust. That’s what that trust was set up for at statehood. But the assclowns in Bismarck don’t understand that. So that would eliminate the need to replace half of the money property taxes has been used for. Then you go in and clean house with county budgets, which you know damn well is chock full of waste. I’d guess 20% could be trimmed like now. So that has you down to having to fund 30% of what has been being collected from property taxes. And I would bet you I could solve that 30% of ten fricken minutes. Force sales tax on all these data centers being built. They are exempt from sales tax. That’s going to be hundreds of millions of dollars annually. So there, I’ve just solved the issue without tapping any of the tens of billions the state has stashed away in all the slush funds they have
 

Colt45

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2015
Posts
1,342
Likes
886
Points
373
It's not always about the "boggiety man". After the $1600 credit last year, my real estate taxes were about $237.00. Until someone can show me it won't cost my wife & I more than that, I will vote no. Someone just needs to come up with a solid plan and people will come around. In my opinion, just eliminating it and depending upon our legislature to handle it isn't a good solution.
Dont know where you live, or what you residence looks like, but if my primary home real estate tax was $237 I would vote no also. But you are the extraordinary exception, not the norm in my opinion. Property taxes are just way out of line, we almost passed a constitution measure to feed kids in school where there were already handouts in place to prevent kids from starving, and it dang near passed. Rest assured it will come back again.
SO in the new socialist democratic arena we now find ourselves in, I will vote multiple times to eliminate property taxes. Might as well get my hand in the "free" bucket for once.
 

eyexer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
14,004
Likes
1,037
Points
553
Location
williston
Dont know where you live, or what you residence looks like, but if my primary home real estate tax was $237 I would vote no also. But you are the extraordinary exception, not the norm in my opinion. Property taxes are just way out of line, we almost passed a constitution measure to feed kids in school where there were already handouts in place to prevent kids from starving, and it dang near passed. Rest assured it will come back again.
SO in the new socialist democratic arena we now find ourselves in, I will vote multiple times to eliminate property taxes. Might as well get my hand in the "free" bucket for once.
This is a classic example of what is wrong with property taxes. If your going to tax property tax is all by the square foot regardless where the home sits. That’s truly equal taxation. This taxation on valuation is an absolute joke. It’s just another possibility to play with the numbers to increase revenue for the county. If you had a set amount for square foot then you don’t have to have these kangaroo courts over valuation. And everybody in the state will be treated equal on their homes.
 

tikkalover

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Posts
8,947
Likes
2,722
Points
808
Location
Minot
The Board of University and School Lands announced historic distributions for the 2027-2029 biennium

The Board of University and School Lands announced historic distributions to trust beneficiaries for the 2027-2029 biennium on Monday.

More than 700,000 surface acres, 2.6 million mineral acres, and 13 permanent trusts contributed an average of an extra 23% to beneficiaries for the upcoming biennium, compared to the last biennium.

The lands generate revenue through agricultural leases, mineral royalties and other uses. The Land Board and Land Trusts staff manage these assets.

The money will be distributed among 14 schools, centers and organizations.

North Dakota State University will receive more than $10.6 million in funds, and the University of North Dakota will receive $8.38 million. Dickson State University and Minot State University will both receive $494,000.

Growth factors can also be attributed to $2.4 billion in oil and gas royalties, agricultural rents, and a $9.5 billion investment portfolio. The majority of this portfolio is made up of the Common Schools Trust Fund (CSTF), which is valued at $9.3 billion.

The distribution from CSTF for the next biennium will be $722 million, and it will go towards K-12 public education. This is up 23.5% from the current biennium, which distributed $585 million.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 122
  • This month: 81
  • This month: 76
  • This month: 68
  • This month: 44
  • This month: 29
  • This month: 26
  • This month: 24
  • This month: 24
  • This month: 23
Top Bottom