Comments on: Legislature and Governor reach compromise on tax bill http://minnesotabudgetbites.org/2008/05/19/legislature-and-governor-reach-compromise-on-tax-bill/ Fri, 04 May 2012 22:43:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Scott Russell http://minnesotabudgetbites.org/2008/05/19/legislature-and-governor-reach-compromise-on-tax-bill/#comment-38 Scott Russell Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:48:16 +0000 http://minnesotabudgetproject.wordpress.com/?p=102#comment-38 We at the Minnesota Budget Project don’t follow Green Acres closely, but we will attempt to fill in the blanks with the help of a few Internet searches. The 2008 legislative changes to Green Acres significantly restricted the program. According to <a href="http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/02/green_acres_program/" rel="nofollow">Minnesota Public Radio</a>, many farmers were up in arms over the changes and in 2009, the legislature largely restored the old program. The Land Stewardship Project created a fact sheet titled <a href="http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/pdf/green_acres_2009_factsheet.pdf" rel="nofollow">Understanding the 2009 Green Acres ‘Reforms’</a>, which said the most problematic parts of the 2008 bill were either repealed or amended. For instance, a 2008 provision said acres in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program or the Reinvest in Minnesota program could not also be in Green Acres. That was repealed. LSP also has an <a href="http://www.landstewardshipproject.org/pdf/factsheets/16_green_acres_2009.pdf" rel="nofollow">earlier fact sheet</a> describing the problems. Minnesota Public Radio’s news report said under the 2009 bill, “farmers will only be allowed to have half of their land in conservation, and they will have to develop a conservation plan. The rules take effect in 2013.” For more information, the Department of Revenue has a <a href="http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/property_tax_administrators/other_supporting_content/2009258%20Fact%20Sheet%205%20%281%29.pdf" rel="nofollow">Green Acres fact sheet</a>, last updated in June 2009. --Scott Russell We at the Minnesota Budget Project don’t follow Green Acres closely, but we will attempt to fill in the blanks with the help of a few Internet searches.

The 2008 legislative changes to Green Acres significantly restricted the program. According to Minnesota Public Radio, many farmers were up in arms over the changes and in 2009, the legislature largely restored the old program.

The Land Stewardship Project created a fact sheet titled Understanding the 2009 Green Acres ‘Reforms’, which said the most problematic parts of the 2008 bill were either repealed or amended. For instance, a 2008 provision said acres in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program or the Reinvest in Minnesota program could not also be in Green Acres. That was repealed. LSP also has an earlier fact sheet describing the problems.

Minnesota Public Radio’s news report said under the 2009 bill, “farmers will only be allowed to have half of their land in conservation, and they will have to develop a conservation plan. The rules take effect in 2013.”

For more information, the Department of Revenue has a Green Acres fact sheet, last updated in June 2009.

–Scott Russell

]]> By: Thom Petersen http://minnesotabudgetbites.org/2008/05/19/legislature-and-governor-reach-compromise-on-tax-bill/#comment-37 Thom Petersen Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:24:08 +0000 http://minnesotabudgetproject.wordpress.com/?p=102#comment-37 This is what I wrote for our recent Minnesota Farmers Union paper about Green acres: This past legislative session many changes were made to the Green Acres program in Minnesota that is in place to stabilize and equalize property taxes from pressures outside of agriculture. The program has been in place for nearly 40 years in Minnesota. Among the changes made this past session was the creation of a new “rural vacant land” classification that is defined as not being used for agricultural production. The Legislature did insert a “grandfather” clause, which MFU took to mean at the time, if you were in the program, nothing would change, however as the change in the law also requires that when land classified as “rural vacant land” is removed from Green Acres, it will be subject to a 7 year back as opposed to the current 3 year pay back. Many MFU members have voiced concern about this, and feel that it is too stiff a penalty and it is not fair to have the rules changed on them after they have signed up for the program. MFU is also concerned that farmers will have to make very tough choices about conservation land such as sloughs, scrub and wind breaks. Farmers enrolled in the program have been getting letters (that differ from county to county) from their county assessors asking them to elect by Jan. 2nd what they would like to do with their non-productive acres. Farmers have many three choices, you can check nothing changes, or you can withdraw some or all of your non-productive acres. After farmers have filled out the form, sometime in the summer they will receive a letter from the county informing them how much they owe. The amount will not be due until November 2009. MFU will be working to make changes early in the legislative session so that farmers and counties have an idea what they will be working with before summer. MFU is working with Reps. Rob Eastlund (R-Isanti) and Tim Faust (DFL-Mora) and Sen. Rick Olseen (DFL-Harris) and Tony Lourey (DFL-Kerrick), as well as administration officials to craft legislation to address members concerns, among some of the ideas: -Repeal the whole legislation that passed last year regarding Green Acres. -Change the 7 year payback to 3 years. -Expand the Grandfather clause to transfers as long as the land is remaining in agriculture. -Expand the definition of Green Acres program to state that one of the purposes of the program is to preserve farm land. -Allow non-productive land to be enrolled in program as long as it is attached to productive land. These are just some of the changes MFU is working on for the next legislative session, MFU testified last year that the Green Acres program should actually be expanded (it is not currently offered in over 30 counties), and also that it should be promoted more. Many members have asked me why these changes took place last year, and one of the answers was that the Office of the Legislative Auditor released a report that found many abuses with in the programs. For more information on the program checkout: http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/publications/press_releases/content/Green_Acres_Website.shtml This is what I wrote for our recent Minnesota Farmers Union paper about Green acres:

This past legislative session many changes were made to the Green Acres program in Minnesota that is in place to stabilize and equalize property taxes from pressures outside of agriculture. The program has been in place for nearly 40 years in Minnesota. Among the changes made this past session was the creation of a new “rural vacant land” classification that is defined as not being used for agricultural production. The Legislature did insert a “grandfather” clause, which MFU took to mean at the time, if you were in the program, nothing would change, however as the change in the law also requires that when land classified as “rural vacant land” is removed from Green Acres, it will be subject to a 7 year back as opposed to the current 3 year pay back. Many MFU members have voiced concern about this, and feel that it is too stiff a penalty and it is not fair to have the rules changed on them after they have signed up for the program. MFU is also concerned that farmers will have to make very tough choices about conservation land such as sloughs, scrub and wind breaks.

Farmers enrolled in the program have been getting letters (that differ from county to county) from their county assessors asking them to elect by Jan. 2nd what they would like to do with their non-productive acres. Farmers have many three choices, you can check nothing changes, or you can withdraw some or all of your non-productive acres. After farmers have filled out the form, sometime in the summer they will receive a letter from the county informing them how much they owe. The amount will not be due until November 2009.

MFU will be working to make changes early in the legislative session so that farmers and counties have an idea what they will be working with before summer. MFU is working with Reps. Rob Eastlund (R-Isanti) and Tim Faust (DFL-Mora) and Sen. Rick Olseen (DFL-Harris) and Tony Lourey (DFL-Kerrick), as well as administration officials to craft legislation to address members concerns, among some of the ideas:

-Repeal the whole legislation that passed last year regarding Green Acres.
-Change the 7 year payback to 3 years.
-Expand the Grandfather clause to transfers as long as the land is remaining in agriculture.
-Expand the definition of Green Acres program to state that one of the purposes of the program is to preserve farm land.
-Allow non-productive land to be enrolled in program as long as it is attached to productive land.

These are just some of the changes MFU is working on for the next legislative session, MFU testified last year that the Green Acres program should actually be expanded (it is not currently offered in over 30 counties), and also that it should be promoted more. Many members have asked me why these changes took place last year, and one of the answers was that the Office of the Legislative Auditor released a report that found many abuses with in the programs. For more information on the program checkout:
http://www.taxes.state.mn.us/publications/press_releases/content/Green_Acres_Website.shtml

]]> By: Bob Hassett http://minnesotabudgetbites.org/2008/05/19/legislature-and-governor-reach-compromise-on-tax-bill/#comment-36 Bob Hassett Thu, 02 Oct 2008 00:59:21 +0000 http://minnesotabudgetproject.wordpress.com/?p=102#comment-36 I would like to know the rational behind: "You must payback the average deferred taxes for the current and two previous years times seven for all non-productive acres (not to exceed the actual number of years enrolled in Green Acres): Also I would like to know who voted for and against the new requirements. I would like to know the rational behind:

“You must payback the average deferred taxes for the current and two previous years times seven for all non-productive acres (not to exceed the actual number of years enrolled in Green Acres):

Also I would like to know who voted for and against the new requirements.

]]> By: Nan Madden http://minnesotabudgetbites.org/2008/05/19/legislature-and-governor-reach-compromise-on-tax-bill/#comment-35 Nan Madden Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:07:12 +0000 http://minnesotabudgetproject.wordpress.com/?p=102#comment-35 This is not an issue that I tracked closely. But House Fiscal's Summary of the Fiscal Actions of the 2008 Legislature has a summary of Green Acres changes on pages 83 and 84. They say: • Rural vacant land located in a township and abutting public waters will be assessed without regard to its public waters access. If the property is developed or platted, the property is assessed at full market value. • Farm ownership restrictions are removed from “green acres” provision. Only land used for agricultural production as newly defined continues to qualify for green acres treatment. • The relationship between farm homes, buildings, productive land, and wasteland is clarified. Class 2a includes agricultural production land. Class 2b becomes unplatted property not used for agricultural purposes, and timberland. Class 2c is timberland under a forest management plan between 10 and 1920 acres in size. Class 2d becomes private airports. Any of the subclasses may contain homestead property. These definitions also replace the agricultural use provisions in the green acres section. The document is available online at <a href="http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/files/08budsum.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/files/08budsum.pdfm</a>. This is not an issue that I tracked closely. But House Fiscal’s Summary of the Fiscal Actions of the 2008 Legislature has a summary of Green Acres changes on pages 83 and 84. They say:
• Rural vacant land located in a township and abutting public waters will be assessed without regard to its public waters access. If the property is developed or platted, the property is assessed at full market value.
• Farm ownership restrictions are removed from “green acres” provision. Only land used for agricultural production as newly defined continues to qualify for green acres treatment.
• The relationship between farm homes, buildings, productive land, and wasteland is clarified. Class 2a includes agricultural production land. Class 2b becomes unplatted property not used for agricultural purposes, and timberland. Class 2c is timberland under a forest management plan between 10 and 1920 acres in size. Class 2d becomes private airports. Any of the subclasses may contain homestead property. These definitions also replace the agricultural use provisions in the green acres section.

The document is available online at http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/fiscal/files/08budsum.pdfm.

]]> By: Jim Doll http://minnesotabudgetbites.org/2008/05/19/legislature-and-governor-reach-compromise-on-tax-bill/#comment-34 Jim Doll Fri, 29 Aug 2008 23:43:53 +0000 http://minnesotabudgetproject.wordpress.com/?p=102#comment-34 I have been told there was a big change made in "GREEN ACRES" which defers taxes on property like lakeshore that is not being developed and property owner therefore does not pay taxes based on lakeshore property. I was told this Omnibus Bill eliminated this benefit to the property owner if the property was no long being used as part of the farm operation and that the primary purpose was to eliminate this benefit on property being used as hunting land. I cannot find anything in this bill regarding this issue altho my County Assessor said it was in this bill. Can you give information as to where I can find it? I have been told there was a big change made in “GREEN ACRES” which defers taxes on property like lakeshore that is not being developed and property owner therefore
does not pay taxes based on lakeshore property. I was told this Omnibus Bill eliminated this benefit to the property owner if the property was no long being used as part of the farm operation and that the primary purpose was to eliminate this benefit on property being used as hunting land.
I cannot find anything in this bill regarding this issue altho my County Assessor said it was in this bill. Can you give information as to where I can find it?

]]>