05-11-2007, 02:32 AM
Municipalities may get to block DNR land acquisition
[url "http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Josh%20Jackett&-nothing"]Josh Jackett[/url]![[Image: z.gif]](http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/images/z.gif)
May 09, 2007 - Municipalities would have some input on whether the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) buys property within their jurisdiction if a state House of Representatives Bill introduced Wednesday, April 25, is enacted into law.
House Bill 4663, which was introduced by Rep. Darwin Booher (R-Evart), would require the DNR to notify a municipal government and the county government at least 60 days in advance if it intends to purchase property in that particular community, and would also prohibit the DNR from purchasing property that would be subject to payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) if the local tax collecting unit or the county disapproves of the purchase.
Patrick Tiedt, a legislative aide for Booher, said the bill, which was also introduced during the 2005-06 legislative session as HB 5814, has roots in Booher's time as a township supervisor.
"What would happen sometimes in our district is the DNR would come in and purchase a large chunk of property, take it off the tax roll, and then continue to do that in similar areas," Tiedt said. "This bill would give the local unit of government an understanding of what the plan is, and knowledge of that happening."
The bill would also increase assessments and PILT allocations related to lands the DNR seeks to purchase.
"Right now we're in the middle of a five-year freeze on raising the assessed value of all state-owned properties," Tiedt said. "That's set to expire in 2009. What the bill would do is set the value of the property at what it should have increased to between 2004 and 2008, in 2009."
According to HB 4663, if the assessed property value increase is greater than 5 percent, the property's value would increase only 5 percent in 2009.
In addition to allowing communities to have some say in whether the DNR purchases property in the community and increases the PILT allocations, the bill would also require local officials to send a summer property tax statement, in addition to the winter statement currently required under law.
PILT payments would also have to be made in order for the DNR to purchase the property. Interest and penalties could be charged to the state under the bill if the department doesn't make PILT payments, which would be considered a tax, in a timely manner.
The failure of the state to fully fund PILT allocations in recent years has reportedly been a sore point with many local governments that have large sections of state land in their jurisdiction.
Leaders of lakes area communities where the DNR could buy sizable chunks of land say the bill's provisions are good ideas, but also expressed some apprehension about their chances of being enacted.
"It won't go anywhere, but it's a good idea," said Milford Township Supervisor Don Green. "Everything that Lansing's been doing lately has been taking control away from the locals."
Despite his community being in an opposite situation — looking to purchase land from the DNR rather having the DNR looking to purchase more land in the community — Commerce Township Supervisor Tom Zoner said he recognizes the bill's benefits, to a point.
"For us it's just the opposite, but if we didn't have that state land where it is now and it was being taxed, PILT wouldn't cover the amount of tax we would collect if the land were developed," he said. "In some cases, like a large township Up North, the state could buy half the township."
He said there should be a threshold on when the notification about the DNR's intent to purchase land is necessary.
"There's already a rule that the DNR has to notify us in case of a sale, but in the case of a purchase, it should be based on the size of property," he said. "I would say that if it were anything larger than 250 acres, they should have to notify us."
Zoner said 250 acres would be a reasonable threshold that wouldn't hurt either party.
"It's small enough the state might not be able to do much with it," he said. "But a large piece, above that, could affect the tax base."
According to Green, the right of a community to block the DNR's attempt to purchase land could allow the community to keep the land in private hands — and not necessarily even a developer — that would pay full taxes on the property.
Both he and Zoner recognized the DNR's failure to fully fund PILT obligations.
"I still can't understand if they can't afford to pay their taxes, why do they buy more land?" Green said of the DNR. "And if they don't have any budget money and they're holding everybody's money up, how can they spend money on land they can't afford to pay taxes on?"
"The PILT money is from the DNR, and not the state's general fund," Zoner said. "They have always had that money — it's in place — and the fact that there are people who are not receiving the full amount of PILT is a travesty. It's already in their budget."
Following its introduction, HB 4663 was referred to the House Government Operations Committee.
[signature]
[url "http://www.spinalcolumnonline.com/1editorialtablebody.lasso?-token.searchtype=authorroutine&-token.lpsearchstring=Josh%20Jackett&-nothing"]Josh Jackett[/url]
May 09, 2007 - Municipalities would have some input on whether the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) buys property within their jurisdiction if a state House of Representatives Bill introduced Wednesday, April 25, is enacted into law.House Bill 4663, which was introduced by Rep. Darwin Booher (R-Evart), would require the DNR to notify a municipal government and the county government at least 60 days in advance if it intends to purchase property in that particular community, and would also prohibit the DNR from purchasing property that would be subject to payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) if the local tax collecting unit or the county disapproves of the purchase.
Patrick Tiedt, a legislative aide for Booher, said the bill, which was also introduced during the 2005-06 legislative session as HB 5814, has roots in Booher's time as a township supervisor.
"What would happen sometimes in our district is the DNR would come in and purchase a large chunk of property, take it off the tax roll, and then continue to do that in similar areas," Tiedt said. "This bill would give the local unit of government an understanding of what the plan is, and knowledge of that happening."
The bill would also increase assessments and PILT allocations related to lands the DNR seeks to purchase.
"Right now we're in the middle of a five-year freeze on raising the assessed value of all state-owned properties," Tiedt said. "That's set to expire in 2009. What the bill would do is set the value of the property at what it should have increased to between 2004 and 2008, in 2009."
According to HB 4663, if the assessed property value increase is greater than 5 percent, the property's value would increase only 5 percent in 2009.
In addition to allowing communities to have some say in whether the DNR purchases property in the community and increases the PILT allocations, the bill would also require local officials to send a summer property tax statement, in addition to the winter statement currently required under law.
PILT payments would also have to be made in order for the DNR to purchase the property. Interest and penalties could be charged to the state under the bill if the department doesn't make PILT payments, which would be considered a tax, in a timely manner.
The failure of the state to fully fund PILT allocations in recent years has reportedly been a sore point with many local governments that have large sections of state land in their jurisdiction.
Leaders of lakes area communities where the DNR could buy sizable chunks of land say the bill's provisions are good ideas, but also expressed some apprehension about their chances of being enacted.
"It won't go anywhere, but it's a good idea," said Milford Township Supervisor Don Green. "Everything that Lansing's been doing lately has been taking control away from the locals."
Despite his community being in an opposite situation — looking to purchase land from the DNR rather having the DNR looking to purchase more land in the community — Commerce Township Supervisor Tom Zoner said he recognizes the bill's benefits, to a point.
"For us it's just the opposite, but if we didn't have that state land where it is now and it was being taxed, PILT wouldn't cover the amount of tax we would collect if the land were developed," he said. "In some cases, like a large township Up North, the state could buy half the township."
He said there should be a threshold on when the notification about the DNR's intent to purchase land is necessary.
"There's already a rule that the DNR has to notify us in case of a sale, but in the case of a purchase, it should be based on the size of property," he said. "I would say that if it were anything larger than 250 acres, they should have to notify us."
Zoner said 250 acres would be a reasonable threshold that wouldn't hurt either party.
"It's small enough the state might not be able to do much with it," he said. "But a large piece, above that, could affect the tax base."
According to Green, the right of a community to block the DNR's attempt to purchase land could allow the community to keep the land in private hands — and not necessarily even a developer — that would pay full taxes on the property.
Both he and Zoner recognized the DNR's failure to fully fund PILT obligations.
"I still can't understand if they can't afford to pay their taxes, why do they buy more land?" Green said of the DNR. "And if they don't have any budget money and they're holding everybody's money up, how can they spend money on land they can't afford to pay taxes on?"
"The PILT money is from the DNR, and not the state's general fund," Zoner said. "They have always had that money — it's in place — and the fact that there are people who are not receiving the full amount of PILT is a travesty. It's already in their budget."
Following its introduction, HB 4663 was referred to the House Government Operations Committee.
[signature]