What is this?

[cowman]

On the Red Deer County website under economic development, there is a vague reference to a provincial study on farmland assessment and recommendations for taxing this farmland? Not really detailed although it did state the local council fully agrees with this study!
Reading between the lines it almost sounds like the rules are going to change...or at least they are floating the idea out there? From what I get out of it intensive livestock operations might be taxed differently than today?
So for example a feedlot or hog barn might be paying more than your average ma and pa type farm?
Now in reality the factory farm probably should be paying more? They are running the roads a lot more with bigger equipment and trucks?
There was also vague references to farm size? Does this mean regular farmers who have bigger equipment on the roads might be expected to pick up more of the cost? Again, I guess it would be hard to argue against this idea? User pays, makes a lot of common sense?
I suspect if this is a province wide push to change the tax structure the debate might be pretty feisty?

[cowman]

The provincial study was released several years ago after a committee chaired by MLA Richard Marz completed a provice wide round of consultations.
The recommendation was to tax the farmland based on the 'footprint concept'. EG: a feedlot would be taxed on the fooprint of the area where the income was generated.

The study and recommendations were left gathering dust on a shelf after the drought followed by BSE made it impossible to even think of implementing it.

[Horse]

And everything else this govmt has studyed. They have an answer and then they put up a comitie to get the answer and think that legetimizes thier answer.
Of course that gives the backbenchers bonus pay for doing what they are told to do.
It does make sence as I have stated before such as silage hauling or manure hauling.
Funny they can put things on hold like bill 31 whitch was to look at crown land BSE and drought didnt affect oil revenue but it is on hold anyway.

[Horse]

Well, I for one do think that confined feeding operations should be taxed as a business after they get to a certain size.
A small feedlot of 2500 head is just a Ma and Pa operation but when you get to 25000 head it is something completely different.
The municipal infrastructure takes a beating and if the feedlot doesn't have a dwelling associated with the site they will only pay farmland tax.

The farmland assessment hasn't got anything to do with Crown land as far as I know Horse.

[cowman]

The way this reads on the website is that they are actually considering implementing it, or at least floating the idea out there to try to get some input?
The stress on the infrastructure of the growth in this area is becoming very apparent. At a local townhall meeting the Reeve said all residential and farmland taxes paid less than 30% of revenue and he wasn't sure about the numbers of actual farmland taxes but thought it was around 11%!
I think just about anyone knows what silage or manure trucks can do to a road? Would it be unreasonable for a feedlot or hog barn to pay extra taxes because they beat up the roads more than your average rural resident?
The oil and gas companies post a bond when they move heavy equipment and are required to fix the road when they beat it up. Would it be unreasonable to suggest the same apply to heavy farm equipment?

[cowman]

Cowman, there is a difference between taxing for road damage and property tax per se.
Any municipality can require feedlots, etc. to post a bond for road damage, or enter into a road use agreement. If the operation doesn't have a road use agreement as a condition of their permit the municipality may apply to the NRCB to request that one be placed on the operation. Many municipalities are content to allow the entire tax base to subsidize the cost of repairing road damage done by vehicles associated with confined feeding operations. Any tax the province would place on these operations via assessment would likely have an education component to it, so 50 percent of the tax colleced would go for education.
The way the livestock industry flexes their muscles to get their way with the government I think it is highly unlikely that any change to the way farmland is assessed will happen for some time to come. If Red Deer County wants to try something on their own, good luck to them !

[cowman]

Well one thing about Red Deer county....they do a lot of things different! But I doubt they would tackle this one? It might be the right thing to do but you know how politics are?
However having said that...who knows?
The county is in the process of redrawing the devisions and actually eliminating one devision. It is generally believed the "urbanites" are going to have a lot more pull by that realighnment? I can see three devisions being very pro-urbanite values and three basically rural. In the rural devisions how many ratepayers are not involved in factory farms...probably the vast majority! And most of them are older? So who knows?
It will be interesting who we get for an elected Reeve and whether he comes from the agricultural community or the acreage crowd?

[cowman]

My municipality did the same thing but added an extra division as well as an elected Reeve. The fellow that was elected is a decent sort but very weak when it comes to looking after the interests of the county, so the local urban centre is having a field day wining and dining him at every opportunity. Believe me, if the agricultural community in your county wants to have their concerns heard they better get behind one candidate for Reeve and ensure that they get somebody that understands the importance of the agricultural industry that is in RD County, or urban issues will be at the top of the list of spending priorities.

[cowman]

I find it interesting that you would go for an extra division? Are you awash in money up there? In Red Deer county one of the councillors said he thought the county could probably go with three councillors and an elected Reeve...and I suspect he might be right? In reality we have three fairly distinct areas. A very urbanite area around the city and out towards Sylvan Lake, a rural area west of highway 2, and a rural area east of highway 2. All three have different viewpoints and needs.
Our present Reeve will probably be running for the office. I think he might be okay. He is a farmer but is very pro developement. He isn't a show boater and seems to be able to work towards a consensous. In my eyes he is a bit of a spendthrift and not as fiscally prudent as I would like but I think he would be able to do the job.
It will be interesting to see how the new division lines are drawn...there will be public input meetings held this spring.