AGRICULTURE

Taxable values for South Dakota ag lands to be debated

ff_admin
Farm Forum

PIERRE – This winter the Legislature will consider changing South Dakota’s system for setting the taxable values of agriculture property.

Farm and ranch properties would be valued according to their actual use as cropland or non-cropland, rather than on the productivity potential of their soils.

The Legislature’s continuing task force on agricultural assessments recommends the change. House Bill 1006 is already filed for the legislative session that opens Tuesday.

But Gov. Dennis Daugaard and the state Department of Revenue – which will follow the governor’s direction – haven’t signaled yet where they will stand.

“The administration has not yet taken a position on this bill. The governor is in the process of evaluating all pre-filed bills over the next couple of weeks,” governor’s spokesman Tony Venhuizen said.

Two years ago, the department’s assistant secretary, David Wiest, spoke against the change. Wiest told the task force that the productivity system should be given more time. The task force let the issue rest.

In October, the task force voted 9-2 to endorse the change to actual use. Six of the task force’s eight legislators have their names on the bill. However, four of those six are Democrats, which raises a political red flag in a Legislature where Republicans hold big majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Its prime sponsor in the House is Rep. Jim Peterson, D-Revillo. Now 70, Peterson has spent much of his 12 years in the Legislature trying to get fairer tax treatment for crop-rated soils that are kept in grass because their topography is so problematic they can’t or shouldn’t be farmed.

“This change would not change the valuation of tillable land but will only decrease the value of grassland currently assessed as tillable,” said Rep. Jim Peterson, D-Revillo, the bill’s prime sponsor in the House. “The time to make this common sense change is now when the overall assessed valuation is going to increase by close to 20 percent for the next two years. Do we want to preserve grassland with all its wildlife benefits?”

If the bill gets through the House, its lead sponsor in the other chamber is Senate Democratic leader Jason Frerichs, of Wilmot.

“The issue fits nicely with the push for more pheasant habitat,” Frerichs said. “South Dakota Corn Growers are about the only farm opposition to actual use. Wildlife, grasslands, cattle are on board. Since this bill has equity cutting either way – valued at grass but farmed, and valued at crop and kept in grass – it makes sense.”

The productivity system took effect for taxes payable in 2011. It is based on soil types for each parcel of property. The general rule is better crop soils are rated higher. Then annual averages for crop production and crop prices for each county are applied.

Actual use means just that. Agricultural land used for crops would be valued as cropland, while agricultural land kept in grass would be valued as non-cropland. Land with crop-rated soils that remain in grass would be valued as non-cropland under actual use.

One of the problems for the productivity system is that crop prices and crop production were very high in the first few years it took effect. Land values, especially for cropland, went up dramatically, but the taxable values didn’t go up as fast, because of state restrictions limiting the annual increases. Consequently, cropland is being valued at what amounts to varying discounts in almost every county.

Those limits on annual increases expire after 2017 for non-cropland and after 2019 for cropland.

Also skewing the process is the eight-year database used for calculating agricultural income values for each county. The high year and the low year are deleted. So when prices were strong for corn, for example, land values didn’t go up as fast, but now that corn prices have weakened, there remains an effect on values from the stronger years.

Only four counties are at full agriculture income value for cropland this year under the productivity method. They are Hutchinson, Lincoln, Stanley and Yankton. But that’s an improvement. None were last year.

The reverse is true for agricultural non-crop land. All but three counties are at full value this year. They are Brookings, Corson and Lawrence. That, too, is an improvement. A year ago, 14 weren’t.

The concern is what happens to land values – and taxes – for cropland under the productivity valuation system when the annual-increase restrictions end after 2019.

Only about two-thirds of counties are expected to be at full value by then, and owners and operators could face spikes in their tax expenses.

Eighteen counties are behind 50 percent or more on cropland values: Brown, Butte, Campbell, Clark, Corson, Day, Dewey, Edmunds, Fall River, Faulk, Jackson, Lawrence, Meade, Perkins, Potter, Shannon, Walworth and Ziebach.

The Ag Unity coalition of different farm and ranch groups who send lobbyists to the legislative session has taken a position on changing to actual use, according to Brenda Forman, the executive director for the South Dakota Association of Cooperatives.

She said, with different groups for and against, it’s unlikely Ag Unity will take a stand.

“We will visit about it at one of our first meetings,” she said. “At this point due to the difference of opinion among ag groups, I do not think it will pass just yet.”