Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Floriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel hears bill to classify cut-flower farms as agriculture to lower taxes and ease permitting
Summary
Senate File 2626 would add floriculture and commercial cut‑flower production to Minnesota’s property-classification statute so small flower farms can seek agricultural classification; the Senate Tax Committee heard testimony from a Wabasha County flower farmer and laid the bill over.
Senate File 2626, which would add floriculture and commercial cut-flower production to Minnesota’s property-classification statute so eligible operations may receive agricultural classification, was heard April 3 in the Senate Tax Committee and laid over for further drafting.
Ally Koopenbender, who testified as a Wabasha County cut-flower farmer, told the committee she operates just under 14 acres with about 2 acres in production and sells wholesale to florists, via a subscription bouquet program, and in bulk for do‑it‑yourself events. Koopenbender said her operation is not a hobby and that “we were able to net well over $50,000 per acre last season.” She said her farm does not currently qualify for agricultural property classification because Minnesota’s property-classification statute does not explicitly list cut flowers or floriculture; as a result, her unheated hoop houses and impermanent structures required permitting and building-inspection fees and she pays residential property tax rates.
Sponsor remarks noted the bill inserts floriculture into the statutory definition of agricultural products and clarifies that production buildings and impermanent high-tunnel structures used for production should be considered agricultural for property-classification and permitting purposes. Sponsors and members discussed the program’s effective date (assessment year 2026, taxes payable 2027) and options for acreage thresholds and test for small operations; they said they would work through language with fiscal staff and coauthors to avoid unintended fiscal impacts.
Action and next steps: The committee laid SF 2626 over for further work; sponsors said they would consult with fiscal staff about acreage thresholds and potential fiscal impact if the 10-acre threshold in current law is adjusted.
Speakers included the sponsor and a small-farm owner who described business economics and permitting costs related to residential classification.
