Dear Neighbor,
Before we get to legislative business, I want to congratulate the girls high school basketball teams from the area that qualified for this year’s state tournament: Albany, Alexandria, BBE and NLS.
At the Capitol, most of our time at this point of the session is being spent in committee meetings conducting bill hearings. This includes some proposals of interest to the agriculture industry, starting with H.F. 2472 pertaining to seeds treated with pesticides. This bill creates a Minnesota Department of Agriculture program requiring farmers to gain permission from the state for each use of systemic pesticide-treated seed, along with submitting a “verification of need.”
There are numerous concerns over this proposal. First, this strict policy is yet another way our state would place itself on an island, at a competitive disadvantage compared with surrounding states that do not have such requirements. Also, if we are not using pre-treated seeds and instead must spray over the tops of plants numerous times, is that any better for the environment?
Seed treatment pesticides are important tools that provide farmers with an economical means of protecting seeds and seedlings against early-season insects, diseases, and other pests. Today’s seed treatments enable farmers to achieve greater yields, healthier crops, and higher revenues. At the same time, seed treatment technology reduces potential risks to the environment, thanks to its highly targeted approach. Pesticides applied as seed treatments undergo rigorous testing and must be specifically approved for this use by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The committee laid this bill over for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill later this session. It would be helpful if individual farmers or ag. groups weighed in with their legislators to let them know this policy is not needed and would be detrimental to our industry.
On another note, a bill hearing for legislation that would create a grain indemnity program designed to reimburse farmers for losses when a grain buyer or grain warehouse fails to pay for delivered grain or breaches a contract with a producer.
Money in the account may also be used to pay grain indemnity premium refunds, payment of administrative expenses, payment of legal fees and expenses, and payment of an appointed trustee.
I had concerns about this bill (H.F. 2718), but I want to say it’s been good working with chief author Rep. Ethan Cha to make improvements. Three amendments from the minority were added to the bill, including one I offered to increase coverage levels.
The bill also was set aside for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill later this session. There also has been movement on this proposal over in the Senate.
In the committee on property taxes, this week we heard a bill which expands a program which provides direct state-paid relief to property owners experiencing high increases to their property taxes.
Under current law, the program allows an “additional” property tax refund for homeowners if their property taxes increased more than 12 percent from the prior year and the increase is more than $100. The refund is 60 percent of any increase over either 12 percent or $100 – whichever is greater. The maximum refund is $1,000.
This bill (H.F. 2725) would reduce the 12 percent threshold for the program to 8 percent. It would also increase the maximum refund from $1,000 to $2,000. For 2023, the bill also temporarily reduces the 8 percent threshold to 6 percent and increases the maximum refund from $2,000 to $2,500.
This bill also could find its way into an omnibus package later this session, so stay tuned.
Have a good weekend and please stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Paul