BISMARCK —

As North Dakota’s biennial lawmaking season passes its midpoint,

a handful of sweeping changes have taken center stage alongside their hefty price tags — from property tax relief and K-12 education funding to criminal justice reform and new mental health infrastructure.

The Legislature has taken a “conservative” approach in terms of what legislation has moved forward, with the state budget hovering at around $6.57 billion — less than half a percent below Gov. Kelly Armstrong’s recommendation ahead of the session.

That standing is likely to reverse as legislators catch up to state agency requests, according to state Treasurer Thomas Beadle.

“They’re trying to rush in that first month to get up to speed,” Beadle said. “As the session goes on, their knowledge base will continue to increase and they’ll usually adjust accordingly. But for right now, they certainly are taking a more conservative approach.”

Property tax relief has been the most expensive legislation.

The House

distilled around 20 differing proposals down to three

that are now under consideration by the Senate. As-is, the approaches combined would cost nearly $312 million over the 2025-27 biennium,

according to a February Legislative Council report.

State money spent on tax relief may seem contradictory, but it’s simply giving that money back to taxpayers, Beadle said.

“It (the legislation) still shows up as a legislative expenditure and as a budget increase, even if an increase of the budget just giving the money back to the taxpayers,” he said.

Legislation that would fundamentally change state aid to K-12 education also advanced with steep costs after

the House defeated a $140 million push for free school meals.

The Senate approved

a plan that would provide $1,000 annually to a state education savings account

for every student whose family income was at or below 300% of the federal poverty line. Any student whose family met the income criteria would be eligible, whether they attend private or public school or are homeschooled.

This would cost $22.8 million in the program’s first year, plus $3 million in administrative expenses.

The House approved a separate plan that would direct around $4,000 to every student attending private school, potentially costing the state over $103 million over the first three years of implementation.

One criminal justice reform bill also has a notable price tag.

Senate Bill 2128, brought by Attorney General Drew Wrigley, would mandate people convicted of drug trafficking or violent crimes

spend at least half of their sentence in prison rather than in transitional housing.

According to the bill’s fiscal note, the action would cost the state approximately $44 million over the next four years.

The bill was originally projected to cost around $200 million and was written to apply to more incarcerated individuals, according to the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Wrigley, who has been at odds with the department over the fiscal note, said $44 million is still too high and maintains that front-end costs will lower overall costs by preventing future crime.

The Legislature deviated from the governor’s recommendation by approving a higher portion of one-time spending proposals compared to those that are ongoing.

Beadle said as lawmakers become more up-to-speed with agency requests, that ratio will shrink and be closer aligned with the governor’s proposed budget.

While earnings on oil and gas revenues are high, North Dakota can afford expensive projects, according to Beadle — like a

more than $330 million new State Hospital in Jamestown

.

Other sizable projects approved thus far include a $30 million incentive that is

likely to go toward constructing a $450 million potato processing facility in Grand Forks,

as well as a $20 million contribution to build a military expansion in the State Historical Society museum.

The state could lose $40 million in revenue to a bill seeking to restructure its tax bracket system, providing tax relief for some North Dakotans.

House Bill 1388’s

most significant change nearly doubles the income threshold for married couples filing jointly to be subject to the state’s full tax rate from over $244,000 to nearly $490,000. The bill aims to offset some of the lost revenue by repealing the

section of state law

that provides a marriage penalty credit.

More state revenue would be lost to a $21 million proposed tax cut for coal processing plants, according to the Legislative Council report.

Some state costs are also state investments, Beadle emphasized.

“We’re in a position where our commodity markets have done well. We’re sitting in a good cash position as a state,” he said. “This is a time where we can invest in some of those areas for the state so that we make sure that we’re providing the services that our citizens need.”