|
| Date: | February 14, 2011 | | Contact Name: | Chris Van Guilder | | Contact Phone: | 651-296-1388 | | Contact Email: | christopher.vanguilder@senate.mn | | For Immediate Release | |
|
| SENATOR MILLER'S GREEN ACRES FIX REFORMS RURAL PRESERVE REQUIREMENTS |
St. Paul - Senator Jeremy Miller (R-Winona) introduced legislation that fixes the problematic Green Acres program, which attempts to protect farmers from rising property taxes due to nearby commercial and residential development. The bill, Senate File 222, calls for modifications to the Minnesota Rural Preserve program. The eight-year irrevocable covenant and the conservation plan will no longer be required to qualify as rural preserve. The three-year tax payback for landowners who leave the program remains.
After meeting with constituents, legislators, farmers, land owners, townships, county assessors, the Department of Revenue, Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, Senator Miller is confident that this bipartisan legislation is the appropriate adjustment.
“We’ve done our homework and met with stakeholders from every side of this issue,” remarked Senator Miller. “This isn’t simply about repealing bad policy or recycling an old idea. This is about making sure we know how to get where we want to be. The Rural Preserve program has been a source of frustration, confusion and irregularity since its introduction in 2009. This bi-partisan solution recognizes that farmland is farmland-and there is no ‘non-productive’ land. This will make it simpler and easier for farmers and the agriculture community to remain protected from unnecessary property tax increases.”
Rural preserve is the category for land that is attached to agricultural land but is not in production. As with land classified “productive,” back-taxes remain due when the property is withdrawn from the program. Taxes are equal to three years of the difference between the taxes based on market value and taxes based on Rural Preserve value.
Green Acres was originally passed in 1967 to prevent the premature development of farmland through tax deferment benefits. In 2008, due to perceptions that some of the enrolled land may not have been the type of land the legislation was intended to protect, legislators altered the program by instituting the Rural Preserve program. Unfortunately, these changes did not have the desired effect. Instead, they created additional costs to implement the changes, irregular and inconsistent application, and significant increases in property taxes for many land owners.
Senate File 222 is scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Taxes Committee on Tuesday, February 15 at 8:30 am.
###
