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

Home

METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 300 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 Rural Area Task Force Summary of Meeting July 7, 1978 Work Group on Taxation and Assessment MEMBERS PRESENT: Schwartz, Schreiber, Lind, Rumpza, Ped, Zweber, Dudding. STAFF PRESENT: Wagner, Schoettler Discussion began with Jim Janke sitting in to further explain and answer questions about the Wisconsin farmland preservation program. He touched on how the change in legislators' was the moving force behind the law. The work group seemed to agree that the program resembled "social" legislation aimed at improving relations with local governments and providing for greater involvement. The Agriculture Preservation Board was initiated to review and certify plans. The board is made up of two planners and one attorney. Ail requirements in an agriculture area must be written into the county's plan. The board's administrative duties include establishing guidelines for plans and co-administering money appropriated in 72 counties. The question was raised asking why a new agency was created when the State Planning Office could be used to do what the Agriculture Preservation Board is doing. Janke replied that the new board served to improve relations with the local governments to show they had a part in decision-making. The Board is headed by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The County Board implements all exclusive agricultural zoning. The State Agriculture Board acts as an appeals board for farmers in need. For counties to plan, standards are adopted requiring certain maps, population projections, data showing how the area will accommodate an increase in population. SCS soil maps accom- pany the plans also. The plans must reflect agreement among municipalities. Soil surveys tend to be out-of-date in rural areas, but updated in the pressured areas. Quite of bit of work is being done on soil surveys. Participation levels depend on local governments. More participation comes from locales with a high farmer representation in the government; less if many urban residents make up the government. The fringe areas have seen little participation; most participants are in the rural areas. Whether or not zoning is effective depends on the locality. Many other factors enter into the viability of farming. In order for any program to be effective, it was noted, several provisions must be determined to be politically acceptable. A higher authority needs to be involved which keeps a check on local government activity. Tax breaks going to farmers depend on whether the county hasplans or not. (The work group felt that tax breaks should go to anyone eligible for them). Local governments appear to have all the say in the Wisconsin Act. Incentives are few for the farmer nearing retirement who can subdivide. If he signs, then breaks the contract, all the credit must be given back. The only landowners who would be interested in the program are farmers dedicated to agriculture. This spring new incentives added to the law aim at attracting a wider, middle income group. Prior to the amendment, the program was geared toward lower income groups. The incentives provided under the program are not available to incorporated farms. The corporate farmer receives no tax break although his land may fall under exclusive agriculture zoning. The 35-acre minimum cuts out most truck farmers. (This was judged to be unacceptable in parts of this state.) The program does not appear to preserve family corporate farms or large commercial farms. Opportunities for sophisticated techniques of agriculture preservation do not exist in the Wisconsin program. It was pointed out that perhaps some techniques can be included in a county's plan. The use-tax evaluation with no rollback provision fails to safeguard agriculture's continuance. In the evaluation process, the local units must report participation rates to the state~ The State Farmland Preservation Unit files reports at time intervals evaluating the success of the program. The state taxes residences using no classification system. A house in town is taxed the same as a farmhouse. Assessment ratios differ from tax area to tax area. The state does all the assessing on commercial lands; the locals on all the residential land. The Wisconsin law restricts itself to zoning which may or may not stop development. In New York, once a municipality zones, it cannot change without the approval of the state. As in many other programs, local plans must fit into the State Comprehensive Plan. Generally, members felt that the Wisconsin program had several problems and may not be effective in Minnesota. Of particular concern was the elimination of the corporate family farm from participation. After a question and answer period with Mr. Janke, the group discussion centered on the proposals in the previous meeting's minutes. A general consensus seemed to favor an incentive program for Minnesota. This would include incentives for a farmer not to sell his land and incentives for potential purchasers not to buy.