Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sen. Eric advances bill to keep farm wineries in agricultural property‑tax class
Summary
Sen. Eric proposed SF 51‑39 to allow licensed farm wineries to remain classified as agricultural property; an owner of a certified organic farm in Quamba testified that converting a production building to commercial status tripled her property tax bill and undercut farm tourism benefits.
Sen. Eric introduced Senate File 51‑39, which would add licensed farm wineries to the list of allowable agricultural land uses so that winery production and on‑site consumption can retain agricultural property‑tax classification rather than be reclassified as commercial. The sponsor said the change is not a new property‑tax cut but a clarification that reflects licensing that remains agricultural in nature.
Debbie Morris, owner of Sap Sucker Farms and Yellow Belly Cidery in Quamba, told the committee that when she licensed a cider production facility on her 172‑acre certified organic farm she expected it to remain on agricultural land but found the new production building was assessed at a commercial property tax rate. "Our property tax went from $3,000 to $9,000," Morris said, describing the increase as effectively tripling her tax bill and raising housing‑cost pressure because the facility sits on the same parcel where she lives. Morris said farm wineries draw visitors to rural communities, support small local businesses and that about 93 licensed farm wineries operate in Minnesota.
Committee counsel and revenue staff said the bill’s fiscal impact would be negligible in the state budget lines tied to property‑tax refunds and homestead credits. Members asked clarifying questions; no formal vote occurred on final passage, and the bill was laid over for further consideration.
If enacted as written, the bill would add contiguous acreage that contains a licensed farm winery (licensed under the statute cited in the bill) to the list of uses eligible for agricultural classification and explicitly include on‑farm consumption of wine produced on the farm as an allowable use under that classification. Supporters framed the bill as protecting farm diversification and ag‑tourism while opponents (in questioning) sought technical clarifications on statutory cross‑references and potential downstream impacts on local assessments.
The committee did not vote to advance the bill out of committee at today’s hearing; it was laid over for future action.
