Land Prices - down?

[bowhunternw]

I would think if there is a drop, it has more to due with lack of profitability from logging. If taxes

I've got 157 acres out of my 160 enrolled at $7 per acre. Had to exclude 3 acres for my buildings.

I did the exact same thing 157 with the 3 acre yard taken out. I think it is a pretty good program, you have to pay a forester to write a stewardship plan to get enrolled though. Felt like I got some good info out of the plan.

Also that is correct $7 per acre.

 

[bowhunternw]

Although I am like others and prefer deer, I have deer, bear, grouse, turkey, bobcats and wolves/coyotes running around out there. I just enjoy having a piece to goof around on, and prices continue to climb around here.

 

[bat man]

..and we all took the SFIA bribe to seal the fate of the deer herd. Fewer deer - sustainable timber.

 

[bat man]

I didn't, went with the 2C plan instead.

Dont even know what 2C means.

 

[biglakeba$$]

Basically the same, but they reduce your taxes on the acres, versus annual payments to subsidize the taxes on the acreage.

 

[Jameson]

some 2C information: http://www.myminnesotawoods.umn.edu/2008/08/2c-tax-class/

 

[SD51555]

What control do they have over your property if you're in a plan like that?

 

[Satchmo]

..and we all took the SFIA bribe to seal the fate of the deer herd. Fewer deer - sustainable timber.

I think your painting with WAAAY too broad a brush there.

What control do they have over your property if you're in a plan like that?

The way my forestry plan was written, they have virtually no control other than I can't develop it for a minimum of 8 years. My plan states my main objective is "wildlife habitat" with a secondary objective of "timber management". Since a large portion of mine had already been logged and part of it replanted in spruce by Potlatch prior to me buying it, there would be no plans for timber harvest until after I'm dead and gone.

 

[Freeborn]

I think your painting with WAAAY too broad a brush there.

The way my forestry plan was written, they have virtually no control other than I can't develop it for a minimum of 8 years. My plan states my main objective is "wildlife habitat" with a secondary objective of "timber management". Since a large portion of mine had already been logged and part of it replanted in spruce by Potlatch prior to me buying it, there would be no plans for timber harvest until after I'm dead and gone.

Mine is very similar, I can't develop it but I can have it logged. Pretty simple way to reduce your property taxes.

 

[foggy]

I took the 2c option too. For reasons stated.

 

[Satchmo]

What turned me off SFIA was that future splitting of the property could be impossible/difficult and/or require a lot of paperwork. If I die tomorrow and my wife wants to section off the house and a few acres and sell the rest...I want her to be able to do so. 2c has no such restriction/limitation.

Your right Stu, while the 2c program only gives about half the benefit of SFIA, it is much simpler to get out from under, and in a shorter amount of time. That is a very important factor when considering enrolling in either of these programs. The SFIA requires a four year notice to take any parcel out of the program. Otherwise (in theory) it goes on for perpetuity after the initial 8 year enrollment. That is part of the reason I left my 160 as 4 individual 40 acre parcels, is so as I near retirement, I can take 1 or 2 or all of those 40s out as I deem necessary for my plans at that time.

 

[Satchmo]

Yep...I heard my forester say "4 year notice" and pretty much stopped listening :confused: Anything that requires a 4 year notice was not something I wanted. I think both programs are great for rec land owners...and really don't know why the state of MN offers them. From what I can determine, there is absolutely nothing "in it" for the state of MN...other than keeping rec land in a natural state.

Ahhhh....... there-in lies the SFIA controversy of which I believe Batman speaks. For private land owners it is a great program depending on your circumstances and if you can live with the limitations. Where the big problem lies is when the huge tracts of paper company land, federal lands, and state forest properties. The supposedly higher timber market prices that come with SFIA designation for those forests has rumors of lobbyists and back door deals flying about pressure to lower deer herd numbers to reduce browse pressure. I believe there is some merit to those rumors, but can't say for certain. I really don't want to get in that bees nest. I just know that for me it work out well.

 

[MoLandOwner]

2C used to save around 35% off your taxes, is that about right now?

 

[SD51555]

I think the auditor got ahold of the SFIA and found it a steaming mess.

State auditor urges overhaul for forestry programs
By Doug Belden
dbelden@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 11/19/2013 12:01:00 AM CST | Updated: about a year ago

Minnesota has paid $44 million over the past decade for a badly defined, poorly monitored forest sustainability program that should be overhauled or scrapped, the state legislative auditor says.

"It's a big mess," said Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, who chairs the evaluation subcommittee of the Legislative Audit Commission, which received the auditor's report Tuesday.

Among the problems: Some landowners receive state money twice for providing essentially the same benefits in terms of sustainable practices and public access. One payment comes from a conservation easement program and the other through the program under review Tuesday: the Sustainable Forest Incentive Act.

"You shouldn't be getting paid twice for the same purpose," Hansen said.

The Sustainable Forest Incentive Act was passed in 2001 to replace a forest taxation law dating from the 1950s. One of its purposes is to offset property taxes paid for privately owned forest land.

But it has other goals as well, including encouraging sustainable forest management, preventing development and securing public access to private property for outdoor recreation.

It might be better if those purposes were separated, with each being served by a specifically tailored program, Legislative Auditor Jim Nobles told lawmakers.

The program is largely administered through the Revenue Department, with some involvement from DNR. "Whose program is this really?" Nobles asked. "We're mixing together quite a few different things."

Leaders of both departments said they agree in concept with the findings and recommendations of the auditor but noted that additional oversight or monitoring, depending on what's required, could require additional state funding.

DNR Deputy Commissioner Dave Schad said that having program applicants register their plans with the department, as the auditor recommends, probably could be accommodated under DNR's current setup.

On the property tax piece, the program pays landowners an annual amount of $7 per acre, regardless of what the property taxes are for the enrolled acres. That means some landowners are having a small percentage of their taxes offset, while others receive more in state payments than they pay in taxes on the land.

Landowners enrolled in the program must follow a forest management plan, agree to restrict development and -- if the size of the parcel exceeds 1,920 acres -- allow public access. The land must be enrolled for at least eight years.

But verification that landowners are complying with the terms of the program is left largely to reports from the landowners themselves, the auditor found. "Are you comfortable simply sending out the check?" Nobles asked legislators.

County assessors have found violations of the agreement, according to the report, including new structures and development -- even a gravel pit -- on land in the program. Not many violations have been confirmed, but officials say there are likely more out there that go undetected because of the loose enforcement.

The law also is poorly equipped to deal with issues that arise when land in the program is sold, and its penalty provision lacks flexibility to deal with specific circumstances, the report found. Revenue officials could recall only one instance in which they imposed a financial penalty, according to the report.

Nearly half the land enrolled in the SFIA program is held by a small number of timber-industry groups.

Wayne Brandt, executive vice president of Minnesota Forest Industries, which represents those groups, said the problems identified in the report relate more to small landowners than to his members.

He said it doesn't matter whether the law is modified or repealed as long as landowners are encouraged to keep forested lands as forests and manage them sustainably and as long as maintaining forest lands is affordable.

SFIA deals specifically with privately owned forest land, which represents more than 40 percent of the 17 million forested acres in the state.

In 2013, roughly 2,300 landowners participated in the SFIA program, with more than 737,000 acres enrolled.

Hansen, the state legislator, said the auditor's report should be a wakeup call for lawmakers to scrutinize the law in the next legislative session, which begins in February.

"Usually when we have these reports, we have 'tweak this here or change that there, polish it.' It's somewhat rare when they ask for repeal," Hansen said. "This report, I think, is an opportunity for the Legislature, even in a short session, to look at that and how do we align this and make things work better?"

 

[Jim Timber]

What turned me off SFIA was that future splitting of the property could be impossible/difficult and/or require a lot of paperwork. If I die tomorrow and my wife wants to section off the house and a few acres and sell the rest...I want her to be able to do so. 2c has no such restriction/limitation.

You break the covenant and you owe 4 years payments (2k for me). Big whoop. If I croak, the Mrs will get more than our lands worth (insurance).

 

[wklman]

I always wonder if we wouldn't be better off if we just got rid of all these entitlements and give-a-way programs and just paid a lower tax for only the services we really needed. I'm sure there'd be a heck of a lot more money in everyone's pocket and a lot less of a mess. I guess that's from growing up out west where government is the problem and not the solution.

 

[wklman]

Another part is that I'm a stubborn a$$ mule and would never want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with my land. I'd rather pay higher taxes then ever give control over to a gov't entity or take a hand out.

 

[Satchmo]

You break the covenant and you owe 4 years payments (2k for me). Big whoop. If I croak, the Mrs will get more than our lands worth (insurance).

After reading SD's post on the auditor's report, I wonder if the state legislature will send me a check for 4 years payments if they break they're agreement with me. Bet NOT.

 

[Satchmo]

I always wonder if we wouldn't be better off if we just got rid of all these entitlements and give-a-way programs and just paid a lower tax for only the services we really needed. I'm sure there'd be a heck of a lot more money in everyone's pocket and a lot less of a mess. I guess that's from growing up out west where government is the problem and not the solution.

I agree 100%....I think we should only pay taxes for the services we really GET!!! If taxes were either side of $2/acre like Mo says they are in Missouri, I wouldn't dream of enrolling in this program. But until they are, I'll consider this program my tax refund.

 

[Freeborn]

I always wonder if we wouldn't be better off if we just got rid of all these entitlements and give-a-way programs and just paid a lower tax for only the services we really needed. I'm sure there'd be a heck of a lot more money in everyone's pocket and a lot less of a mess. I guess that's from growing up out west where government is the problem and not the solution.

It will never happen. Programs like SFIA are small compared to the total. There are to many people whose standard of living, benefits, vacation, PTO etc are all tied to how the system works. These people vote democrat because knowingly or unknowingly they are part of their system.