Supporting Argument. As the price of oil continues to climb, the use of alternative energy can help ease supply constraints, reduce dependence on foreign oil, and offer environmental benefits. Alternative energy can take many forms, including cellulosic ethanol, which is a fuel that can be produced from the conversion of cellulosic biomass. Cellulose is a polymer composed of repeating units of glucose and is contained in the cell wall of plants. Cellulosic biomass can be produced from rapidly growing trees, such as hybrid poplar and silver maple, as well as large perennial grasses, such as switchgrass and miscanthus. In Michigan, approximately 10,000 acres of land are subject to open space development rights easements, which prevent the property from being used for any purpose that would alter its character as open space land. Potentially, some of this land is suitable for agriculture and could be used to produce perennial crops for cellulosic ethanol. The landowner, however, may not farm the property without terminating the development rights easement and subjecting the property to a lien for taxes that were not paid while the easement was in effect. Under the bill, a landowner could withdraw property from an open space development rights easement, without penalty, if the land became subject to a farmland development rights agreement and were devoted to the production of perennial cellulosic ethanol crops for energy generation. This would keep the land in agricultural use for at least 10 years, and would help promote the production of energy crops and lessen the use of petroleum-based fuel.
Supporting Argument. According to the September 1999 report of the Senate Agricultural Preservation Task Force, the advantages of enrolling land in the FDRA program declined significantly due to the 1994 passage of Proposal A, which reduced average property taxes on homestead and agricultural property by almost one-half. Since the value of the tax credit is considerably lower than it used to be, there is less incentive for farmers to enroll in the program or to re-enroll when their agreement expires. Moreover, since tax credits are smaller, less money is paid into the Agricultural Preservation Fund when FDRAs terminate, which means that fewer funds are available to purchase development rights. Along with other legislation addressing concerns raised by the Task Force, Public Act 421 of 2000 reduced the income threshold for a land owner to participate in the FDRA program. By increasing the amount of the credit and extending it to some taxpayers who did not previously qualify, Public Act 421 should help restore the program's effectiveness as a tax-cutting incentive. Senate Xxxx 692 would build on these reforms by preserving the tax credit for land owners who transferred from an FDRA to a PDR, as well as by extending the credit to farmland owners who sold their development rights without first being enrolled in an FDRA. Legislative Analyst: X. Xxxx
Supporting Argument. According to the Department of Treasury's State-Wide Real Property Tax Forfeiture and Foreclosure Statistics, between approximately 30,000 and 38,000 properties were foreclosed annually in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Public Act 449 of 2014 was important to mitigate the problem of homes being auctioned off due to delinquency in tax payments, something that was especially common in Xxxxx County, through the use of tax foreclosure avoidance agreements. These agreements have been successful and it is necessary to continue offering them to homeowners who meet the criteria under the Act. Response: If the program is successful, it has been suggested that the sunset date be eliminated altogether. Legislative Analyst: Xxxx Xxxxxxxxxx
Supporting Argument. In recent years, the Attorney General's office made it clear, through a title opinion letter and in memoranda, that a farmland development rights agreement had to be terminated when the State purchased the same development rights that were subject to the FDRA. This requirement was likely to affect the majority of cases in which a land owner transferred from an FDRA to a PDR, since land owners have been enrolled in the FDRA program in nearly all PDR cases. Upon termination of the FDRA, the land owner became liable for seven years of tax credits (plus interest, if the transfer occurred before the agreement had expired), and the State had to record a lien for the amount that was not repaid within 30 days. At the same time, the land owner lost the FDRA tax credit. Although these consequences were legally required, they created a disincentive for land owners in the FDRA program to transfer to a PDR. The bill addressed this situation by exempting farmland from the lien requirement if the land becomes subject to a PDR or an agricultural conservation easement, either during the term of the FDRA or when the agreement expires. In addition, the land owner will remain eligible for the tax credit allowed under the FDRA program. Encouraging farmers to sell their development rights in this way not only will benefit the individual land owners, but will help promote the State's interest in preserving agricultural property. While land subject to an FDRA must continue to be farmed, that agreement is only temporary. When development rights are purchased, the land is permanently protected from nonagricultural development.
Supporting Argument. In recent years, the Attorney General's office made it clear, through a title opinion letter and in memoranda, that a farmland development rights agreement had to be terminated when the State purchased the same development rights that were subject to the FDRA. This requirement was likely to affect the majority of cases in which a land owner transferred from an FDRA to a PDR, since land owners have been enrolled in the FDRA program in nearly all PDR cases. Upon termination of the FDRA, the land owner became liable for seven years of tax credits (plus interest, if the transfer occurred before the agreement had expired), and the State had to record a lien for the amount that was not repaid within 30 days. At the same time, the land owner lost the FDRA tax credit. Although these consequences were legally required, they created a disincentive for land owners in the FDRA program to transfer to a PDR. The bill addressed this situation by exempting farmland from the lien requirement if the land becomes subject to a PDR or an agricultural conservation easement, either during the term of the FDRA or when the agreement expires. In addition, the land owner will remain eligible for the tax credit allowed under the FDRA program. Encouraging farmers to sell their development rights in this way not only will benefit the individual land owners, but will help promote the State's interest in preserving agricultural property. While land subject to an FDRA must continue to be farmed, that agreement is only temporary. When development rights are purchased, the land is permanently protected from nonagricultural development. Supporting Argument According to the September 1999 report of the Senate Agricultural Preservation Task Force, the advantages of enrolling land in the FDRA program declined significantly due to the 1994 passage of Proposal A, which reduced average property taxes on homestead and agricultural property by almost one-half. Since the value of the tax credit is lower than it used to be, there is less incentive for farmers to enroll in the program or to re-enroll when their agreement expires. Moreover, since tax credits are smaller, less money is paid into the Agricultural Preservation Fund when FDRAs terminate, which means that fewer funds are available to purchase development rights. Along with other legislation addressing concerns raised by the Task Force, Public Act 421 of 2000 reduced the income threshold for a land owner to participate in the FDRA program. By...
Supporting Argument. As of 1995, the Attorney General reportedly had 21 judgments, worth about $75,000, against out-of- State employers in 13 different states. The average judgment in these cases is over $3,500. Since judgments rendered in Michigan are difficult to enforce out-of-State, the xxxx would allow the Department of Labor to enter into reciprocal agreements with other states to enforce these judgments. The xxxx not only would streamline the process of executing judgments out-of-State and raise the collection rate, but also could serve as an inducement to voluntary cooperation byemployers. Employers could be more likely to resolve claims if they knew that payment of a judgment could not be evaded. According to testimony before the Senate Committee on Human Resources, Labor and Veterans Affairs, there currently are 29 states that have reciprocal agreement authority. By enabling Michigan to join that group, the xxxx would benefit both Michigan employees owed wages by employers in reciprocating states, and employees from those states owed wages by Michigan employers. Legislative Analyst: X. Xxxxxxxxx
