Should the county board resolve not to allow any gain in the percentage of publicly owned land in Cook County? The question came up when a representative of the Association of Minnesota Counties queried Auditor-Treasurer Braidy Powers to find out if the county has ever passed or plans to pass a resolution calling for no net gain of public land.
Almost 92 percent of the land in Cook County is in public hands already, Assessor/ Land Commissioner Mary Black told the board on Tuesday, March 8, 2011.
Commissioner Fritz Sobanja said this issue comes up at various regional and state meetings he attends, and he believes the county should establish a policy on it. “We can’t afford to lose our tax base,” he said. The discussion broadened to include whether the state should take ownership of more property if given the opportunity.
“I want some time to think about this,” Sue Hakes said. She was asked later what her thoughts were on the issue. Her response included the following: “I’m just beginning to explore and understand the concerns. At this point, I don’t know where I stand…. I need more information.
“Certainly, increasing public lands and reducing the amount of land available for private ownership and development could limit the local tax base. I agree this is cause for concern, particularly as we face budget challenges in our foreseeable future.
“However, there are certainly financial consequences to our local economy if we don’t protect our public lands. Hunting, which is allowed in state forests and wildlife management areas, is over a $500 million industry for Minnesota and employs close to 12,000 people. Cook County’s tourism economy is greatly dependent on our public lands where visitors come to hunt, fish, hike, ski, snowmobile, ride ATVs, camp, paddle, and go boating. Our public lands are also precious to those of us who live here.
“I also have questions…. Does “no net gain” limit land management options for Cook County by forcing land sales? Do we lose autonomy in making decisions? What are the benefits, consequences and unintended consequences, specifically for Cook County?
“Whatever is ultimately decided, I believe that counties should have the final say about whether private land is converted to public use.”
In a phone conversation, Commissioner Hakes gave an example of the complexity of the issue: A bill introduced this session by a group of legislators including Representative David Dill calls for the state to not acquire more land unless it sells land. It does not state whether the exchange would be dollar for dollar or acre for acre. If the state had 20 acres of land in a location that would be perfect for a business development and a business happened to own 160 acres worth the same amount way back in the woods where hunters would like to hunt, the state could make such an exchange if the exchange could be dollar for dollar, but it could not make the exchange if it had to be acre for acre, even though the exchange could benefit the economy and leave more undeveloped land for outdoor recreation.
Commissioner Bruce Martinson said he thinks the county board may need to take a stand. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) doesn’t have enough money to maintain the land it owns already, he said.
The southern part of the state has very little publicly owned land compared to the northern part of the state, Sobanja said. If the state starts buying land in the Metro area and in the south, he wondered, how would that affect the payment in-lieu-of-taxes (PILT) money available to Cook County for its public land? Nonprofits like the Nature Conservancy buy land and then donate it to the state, but they get their money from corporations that are trying to “lock up the competition,” he said. “They’re buying up property that once was on the tax roles.” He questioned whether PILT payments would keep up with property taxes.
Minnesota on gaining public land
A year ago, the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor came out with a report regarding DNR land. It states, “…The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) appears to lack adequate resources to manage and maintain its current landholdings. …An unclear statutory purpose and a lack of data make it difficult to determine the adequacy of payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) made to local governments with state natural resource land within their boundaries. Nevertheless, we determined that PILT is generally more than adequate in replacing the property taxes lost by counties when DNR acquires non-hunting land.
“…About one-fourth of the land in Minnesota is owned by government agencies…. State land includes 5.6 million acres managed by DNR, or about 11 percent of the land in Minnesota. … The state also owns 2.8 million acres of tax-forfeited land in trust for local governments. This land, which is primarily forest land, is managed by counties and accounts for about 6 percent of the land in Minnesota.
“…In addition to owning land, the state has purchased conservation easements on private land that limit development or land uses. DNR has over 1,100 conservation easements…. The Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has purchased more than 5,100 easements on wetlands and farmland.
“…DNR’s long-range plans propose significant growth in state-owned land…. For example, an increase of 64 percent is recommended for wildlife management areas, while an increase of over 300 percent is recommended for aquatic management areas. The goals for most areas are high, except for state forests and other forest land where an increase of 3 to 6 percent is proposed.
“…The state’s payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) have generally been a reliable and growing source of revenues for local governments with state land within their boundaries. …However, payments have not kept pace with inflation in some counties with little acquired land.
…For private land acquired by DNR, the main fiscal impact is reduced property tax revenue. Public ownership of land may also affect the costs of providing local government services…. Negative fiscal impacts may be offset to some extent by a number of factors including: 1) increased state aids to counties, cities, and school district; 2) the economic impact of visitors to state parks and other land; 3) increased values of property adjacent to public land; and 4) revenues generated from certain state lands and distributed to local governments.
“…Our estimates suggest that, in about 90 percent or more of the counties, the PILT paid in 2009 on acquired state land exceeded the combined county and township property taxes on similar private land, and sometimes by a significant percentage. These results suggest that the PILT counties receive for most acquired land is generally greater than the property taxes they receive on comparable private land.”
Mary Black agreed to find out the kinds of policies other counties do or do not have regarding no net gain of public land. No doubt the county board will continue to discuss the issue as time goes by.
Leave a Reply