January 29, 2010
Jan 29 04:01 Green Acres Fight Heating Up
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Green Acres Fight Heating Up
Thursday, I got a special e-letter update from Rep. Gottwalt on the subject of the Green Acres property tax meetings. To say that the new legislation enacted during the 2008 session is a screwed up mess is understatement. Here's the most important part of the statement that the State of Minnesota sent out to farmers enrolled in the Green Acres program:
Saint Paul ; The Minnesota Department of Revenue is alerting taxpayers of changes the 2008 Tax Bill made to the Green Acres property tax law. These changes will affect property taxes only if a persons' property is currently enrolled in the Green Acres program or will be enrolled in the future.The legisature's decision to change taxation rates will hurt Minnesota's farmers and Minnesota's environment. If people thought it through first, I'd bet that few people would think it's wise to tax woodlots at the same rate as a city lot. Under the legislation signed into law in 2008, a farmer would have a greater incentive to cut down the woodlot & plant it with crops than to preserve a valuable windbreak.
Non-productive acres such as sloughs, woodlands and wetlands that are not used for agricultural production will no longer be eligible for the reduced agricultural valuation and property tax deferment provided by Green Acres. Specifically, this legislation changes the number of payback years for parcels, or portions of parcels, that will no longer qualify for Green Acres because they are non-productive acres. In addition, property that is enrolled in CRP, RIM, or other conservation programs will no longer be eligible for Green Acres.
Only acres used for actual agricultural production will be eligible for Green Acres for all applications filed with the county assessor after May 1, 2008. Those enrolled in the program prior to May 1, 2008 may remain enrolled for subsequent assessment years until they are sold, withdrawn or no longer qualify, although these existing properties will be subject to the new payback requirements.
Here's the important portion of Rep. Gottwalt's e-letter:
Stearns County has held a series of meetings this week to explain recent changes in property taxes for agricultural land owners, including those impacted by Green Acres legislation. More than 160 people showed up for the meeting in Rockville, and a similar number at two meetings in Waite Park. The bottom line is, many agricultural land owners are steaming mad about huge increases in their property taxes, caused mostly by increased assessed values dictated by state and federal laws.The fact that that many people attended a townhall meetings in the dead of winter tells you how intense the dissatisfaction is towards the modifications made to Green Acres in 2008. Legislators that don't repeal the changes made in the 2008 session should be retired this November, especially with legislators representing rural districts.
Let's ask a simple question about the change in tax rates. Does anyone think that "sloughs, woodlands and wetlands that aren't used for agricultural production" have the same value as a 5-acre city lot? Having spent many a weekend traipsing through "sloughs, woodlands and wetlands that aren't used for agricultural production" in the pursuit of ducks, geese and grouse, my answer is NOT A CHANCE!!! Though I loved those pursuits, there's no way I'd agree that those types of terrain are worth as much as a 5-acre city lot.
With one exception.
The minute that farmer initiates the process to turn his farmland into a development is the minute that the higher property taxes should kick in. That's the point that the land stops being rural farmland.
It's important to note that this change applies to places like Ronneby just as much as it applies to places like St. Augusta. The reason why that's important is simple. There isn't much development potential in a town like Ronneby. There's alot of development potential with St. Augusta. Considering the fact that it isn't nearly as likely that Ronneby will be developed as it is that St. Augusta will be developed, then it's important that we ask why "sloughs, woodlands and wetlands" in Ronneby should be taxed at the same rate as homes in the city.
Farmers shouldn't be penalized for not developing their farms. That's what's happening with farms under this tax system. That's why now's the time to fix 2008's mistakes ASAP.
Posted Friday, January 29, 2010 4:01 AM
Comment 1 by gmw at 29-Jan-10 08:03 AM
There is more going on with ag property than just the green acres change. The state and the counties have "reclassified" thousands of acres of ag land into higher tax rate rural residental property. We are on 27 acres and raise horses and chickens. All of our pasture land is used for grazing the horses, but horses no longer count as "ag livestock". Because we do not have ten acres in production of a sellable ag product the county has changed us to rural residental costing us several hundred dolars per year in additional property taxes
Comment 2 by eric z at 29-Jan-10 12:03 PM
Are you saying that it's wrong to reclassify land IN THE SEVEN COUNTY METRO AREA that speculators are sitting on, waiting for sewer and water to arrive from Met Council, while planting or allowing the planting of corn that's not harvested so that they can hold, speculate, and not pay fair taxes?
Surely, not. I expect a good answer might be to keep a distinction that already exists in law.
Tighten up the speculation dimension in the seven county Metro area if needed for revenue.
Allow the real farms in truly rural or even changing exurban regions outside of the Metro area.
That seems it would keep everyone happy, unless your friend Gottwalt wants only to make partisan noise rather than pushing toward a real solution.
Just a thought. But think it over. Forward it to legislators you think might be happy with it as a sensible compromise that might gain bipartisan support and passage.
Comment 3 by eric z at 29-Jan-10 12:14 PM
Disincentives toward maintaining habitat and unproductive parts of lands unsuited to agriculture [e.g., is the contention wetlands should all be planted with wild rice] in a pristine state seems to cut against DNR ideals of preserving species and game for in-state and tourist attraction.
But the abuse is the Metro area speculators abusing green acre status.
I agree, Gary, that keeping land best suited as game and diverse species habitat that way is nothing but good sense.
That would be in Metro and rural regions.
But hang the cheats who abuse green acre status waiting to make millions of a land deal killing in the Metro area.
I am serious Gary, I think it is the best of both worlds to get fair revenue from speculators, but not to discourage prudent fallow land decisions in rural areas, or in Metro.
Besides, there are DNR and other wetland protection laws. Farmers in many instances have no choice.
It seems this issue really should be depolarized to where the changes make sense where made, and are not arbitrary.
Yet I understand there will be some immediately shouting that it is yet more discrimination by rural Minnesota against urban Minnesota to do what I suggest.
I think it is not that.
I think it is treating rural and urban dewllers fairly by not letting Metro area speculators screw over everyone else.
End of rant.
