The Michigan House Agriculture Committee unanimously passed a bipartisan seven-bill package on Dec. 10 to restore clarity for farmers enrolled in both the state’s Farmland and Open Space Preservation Program (P.A. 116) and permanent conservation easements.
The legislation — approved earlier this month by the Michigan Senate — responds to a reinterpretation by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) and the Department of Treasury that disrupted the program and resulted in delayed tax returns, back-tax assessments, and conflicting guidance for landowners.
Michigan Farm Bureau strongly supports the bills, which were developed after county Farm Bureau members began reporting unexpected problems with their P.A. 116 tax credits.
“Farm Bureau’s grassroots members brought this issue forward, and their persistence made this legislation possible,” said MFB Legislative Counsel Rebecca Park. “These bills are essential to restoring stability for landowners who followed the rules and relied on long-standing program practices. We urge the House to move quickly so farmers have certainty heading into the new year.”
Senate Bills 685–690 and 699 would reaffirm that farmland enrolled in both preservation programs remains eligible for the P.A. 116 income tax credit. The package also includes Senate Bill 699, which increases the administrative spending cap for the Agricultural Preservation Fund, strengthening support for county and local preservation entities that administer the program.
MDARD Legislative Liaison Mikaylah Heffernan told lawmakers that the department supports the bills and collaborated with sponsors and stakeholders to address the problem, while noting several administrative considerations.
“Given these concerns, we were happy to engage in discussions with bill sponsors, landowners and conservancies, to develop a legislative fix, which is what you all have before you,” Heffernan said.
Farm Bureau member testimony
During committee testimony, long-time farmland preservation participants described the realities of the reinterpretation and reasons for supporting the legislative fix.
Washtenaw County Farm Bureau member Steve Drake explained how payment delays and eligibility questions affected his multi-generation farm.
“My dad put the farm into both programs to preserve it for his grandchildren. Mine (my payment) was held for three years, and I got about a third of my payment… because they're saying I'm not eligible for more because I'm in both programs. I support all six bills to get this straightened out so that we can continue farming.”
Ingham County Farm Bureau member Don Oesterle added that the fix is also important for farms that have already sold their development rights.
“We have about 1,800 acres in P.A. 116 right now… Without P.A. 116 I don't have any protection. I've already sold the development rights… They can tax me whatever they want…and I can't sell it,” Oesterle said.
“These bills are really important for us… so that we're only paying so much in property taxes for ground that is only being farmed and can only ever be farmed.”
The seven-bill package now moves to the full House of Representatives for further consideration.
Share Story
Article Tags
