“Cap future annual increases in local property tax budgets (cities, counties, schools, park districts) at 3%, with unused amounts able to carry over for up to five years.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Sign in and complete the Contributor Agreement to propose an edit.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Both cited sources are reachable and every quoted phrase appears verbatim. The North Dakota Governor's official press release (PRIMARY) confirms all four promise elements: "Lawmakers adopted the governor's proposed 3% cap on future increases in local property tax budgets"; the cap "encourage[s] cities, counties, schools, and park districts to budget prudently and plan ahead"; and "If the entire 3% isn't used, the remainder of it can be carried over for up to five years." The bill is House Bill 1176, which Armstrong proposed in his January 7 State of the State Address and signed into law. The KFGO secondary source independently confirms "Lawmakers adopted the governor's proposed 3 percent cap on future increases in local property tax budgets" and the Armstrong signing-ceremony quote. CHAMPIONED (rather than FULL) is justified because the sources show real leadership, not a mere vote: Armstrong authored/proposed the 3% cap framework as his own gubernatorial proposal, publicly pushed it, and signed the enacting bill — the enacted policy matches the promise verbatim on the named districts, the 3% cap, and the five-year carryover. Confidence is high; minor session-negotiated override/exception fine print keeps it just below the original 0.97, but does not alter the core outcome.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.