Agenda - Council - 02/26/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Rural Area Task Force Minutes of the AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION SUBCOMM%TTEE MEETING JULY 7, 1978 MEMBERS PRESENT: Brandt, Knoll, Koniarski, Ped, Raup, Rumpza, Rydeen, Schwartz, Schreiber, Sipe, Stelzel - Chair, Wollmering, Zweber MEMBERS ABSENT: Bischoff, Bradley, Dudley, Ertl, Felton, Hentges, Lewis, Nicolai, Raup, Schwab, Sherber, Sifferath, Sorg, Widmer, Witt. OTHERS PRESENT: Mary L. Dudding - State Planning Agency, Jim Janke -St. Croix County, Wisc., Bob Lind, Gary Pagel, Alda Peikert, Agnes Ring - St. Croix County, Wisc., Tom Salkowski. The meeting was called to order by Gerald Stelzel at 9:15 a.m. The minutes of the June 16 meeting were accepted as written. The Annexation and Eminent Domain Work Group was asked to present its final recommendations on eminent domain. Pat Schwartz, work group spokesperson, reviewed four general recommendations with the subcommittee and asked for comments. After some discussion and clarification, a motion was carried to accept the following recommendations on eminent domain. 1. To allow utilities to utilize federal and state highway rights-of-way. (if radio interference is a problem from power lines, then research should be carried out to provide a device to filter out the interference.) 2. In the granting of a new utility right-of-way, no new locations should be established if there is an existing utility or highway right-of-way available. (Modern agricultural technology makes farming very difficult on land that is crossed with many utilities.) 3. When a new utility or highway right-of-way is established, it should be designed to accommodate future needs. 4. When trenching is necessary for a utility, all topsOil shall be bladed to one side of the easement area and should return the field to its original condition after construction. Having completed their work, the Annexation and Eminent Domain Work Group members will disperse and join other work groups for future subcommittee meetings. Wisconsin Agricultural Preservation Program Jim Schoettler of staff, introduced Jim Janke as guest speaker addressing the subcommittee on Wisconsin's Farmland Preservation Program adopted in 1977, considered to be one of the most active programs in the country. Mr. Janke is from the University of Wisconsin Agricultural Extension Office in St. Croix County, Wisconsin, and also a participant in the Capital and Equity Work Group of the subcommittee. Mr. Janke distributed some background materials on Wisconsin's program, then discussed its historical development. He explained that Wisconsin's program uses the same principle as the Homestead Act, but is a circuit-breaker law based on income tax credits rather than property tax or use value assessment credits. Basically, the program is a voluntary one offering a state tax break to participants ranging from 50 to 100 percent as an incentive if agricultural land is preserved. The two-stage program offers many options to farmers and local governments, with the tax credit amount determined by the option chosen. The first stage runs until 1982 and the second stage begins in 1982 or earlier depending on the action of local governments. Before 1982, farmers can qualify for tax credits if 1) they sign a contract agreeing not to develop their land for a specific time period, or 2) their land is under exclusive agricultural zoning. After 1982, tax breaks are given only if the county adopts an exclusive agricultural preservation plan or exclusive agri- cultural zoning. If the county adopts both exclusive ~.ag~icultural planning and zoning, farmers are eligible for 100 percent tax credit. Some tax credit repayment is required if land is withdrawn from the program. See attached for more specific details of the program. As of March 1978, participation in the Wisconsin program has been very rapid, occurring at a much higher rate than similar programs in other states. Most of the action has occurred in Wisconsin's western counties. The program should prove to be very successful if this high participation rate continues. During the discussion that followed, several additional points were made: Strong points: 1. Because Wisconsin's program is based on an income tax credit and not property tax credit such as programs in other states, there is no local tax loss to communities. Communities retain their local tax base.