Property taxes

db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,142
Likes
1,282
Points
483
Location
ND
As a kid i bought a Nichol derringer cap gun. Never found it again and no idea what happen to it but today i won the bid not only on a Nichols derringer but also a Hubley.
Life is now good again. Wiil go on wall with my two Roy Rogers holsters i had as a kid. db
 


Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
11,372
Likes
2,713
Points
783
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
What was the thinking back then to sell this land and then keep the mineral rights?

After the thirties my dad bought his uncle's 3 quarters of land from FLB they had reposes from him.
As i understood, paid $2,700 for those 3 quarters. Sold the uncle's house for $900 and crop 30 acres. Balance was quack grass for winter pasture. In 3 years had it paid for. FLB did keep the mineral rights.

However, i strongly believe all mineral rights need to stay with the land and not treated as a separate item. Same with those who want to keep hunting rights.
State needs to dead those rights back to the surface landowner as does FLB. db

What the hell? Are you seriously talking about stealing one's property and giving it to someone else? Most of the time in private sales, the land was offered up at $XXX per acre including minerals. OR, you could choose to buy just the surface acres at $XXX - $XX. Most of the people buying land considered themselves farmers, not investors. So they budgeted for the purchase of the surface rights in order to be able to grow a crop with an overall lower cost for the land.

What you are proposing is straight-up theft. WTF?


FWIW, there are also minerals owned by the State dating back to the 30s and 40s where a farmer needed a loan to stay on the farm. The State legislature, being quite ag friendly, wrote legislation that gave them loans at well below market rates with the buy-down on the interest rates being provided by giving the "worthless" minerals to the State for a lower interest rate. Remember, oil wasn't discovered in ND until 1953(?), so most of those landowners realistically had little to no interest in owning minerals, and the State did because they wanted gravel for roads. The minerals for lower interest rates also brought along the few legislators who weren't necessarily as ag friendly and wanted to make sure non-ag voices in the state received something for subsidizing the below market interest rates.

I know a few people whose grandpappy traded his minerals to the state in order to receive favorable loans. Lots of those people's grandkids and great grandchildren are pissed as hell at the State, but should probably be just as angry at dear ol' gramps for doing what he had to do to keep the land as they now miss out on royalties even though they still enjoy the benefits of owning the surface acres that gramps would have probably lost without that loan program.
 

db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,142
Likes
1,282
Points
483
Location
ND
like i said, it will never happen.
For me the theft came from the state. db
 

Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
11,372
Likes
2,713
Points
783
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
like i said, it will never happen.
For me the theft came from the state. db

That literally makes no sense.

To those who inherited land without minerals because gramps sold them, sorry...them's the breaks. Maybe gramps was a better businessman than a farmer when he made the decision to keep the land at the cost of those worthless minerals?
 

db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,142
Likes
1,282
Points
483
Location
ND
It seems to me that gramps did not sell the rights, the state just took them.
Same as when my dad bought land from FLB who had repo the land from his uncle. Dad had no choice as they just kept 50%.
I was not around when a lot of this went down but i fail to understand why mineral rights were kept by someone who was there to help the farmer out.
Tell me why FLB kept something of no value. db
 
Last edited:


db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,142
Likes
1,282
Points
483
Location
ND
Someone, a non-landowner, must of knew about their value. Why else did they keep them? db
 
Last edited:

Davy Crockett

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Posts
15,031
Likes
2,343
Points
783
Location
Boondocks
They were ahead of times , no different than playing stock market. A friend's dad was in the implement business and took mineral rights in trade from those who were struggling when times were tough. They made out like fat rats .
 

lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
22,384
Likes
7,020
Points
1,008
Location
Cavalier, ND
If we didn't do it someone else would be, does the offset of sustainable employment outweigh the cost of that tax incentive?
https://www.grandforksherald.com/ne...-large-projects-help-keep-grand-forks-growing
GRAND FORKS – Despite some criticism, giving property tax incentives to developers is key to keeping Grand Forks growing, according to Mayor Brandon Bochenski.

“You’re trying to get projects done that wouldn’t happen otherwise,” Bochenski said. “If you want to have long-term growth in the city, and you’ve gotten an opportunity to incentivize some things for a period of time, you’re going to get short-term benefits, but really it’s a long-term play to build up what our taxable value is per citizen.”

Numerous property tax incentives, usually in the form of an exemption for a period of time, have been making their way through the Grand Forks City Council. The specifics of the exemptions vary, but entities requesting an exemption will still pay taxes on the land and will pay the full property tax bill after the period of the exemption ends.

The exemptions being considered in 2025 have been longer than five years, which, per Century Code, also require approval from both the Grand Forks County Commission and the Grand Forks School Board.

“I think it’s beneficial — I truly do — to add some fuel to that fire and to promote some growth like we’ve been doing,” Bochenski said.

Offering these incentives has not been without concern for some on the City Council, and on other governing boards in Grand Forks. The council had an in-depth conversation about the incentives in April.

“I think if they would pay their fair share, maybe my taxes would go down,” Councilmember Rebecca Osowski said during that April 14 meeting. "I just feel like we're subsidizing rents."

However, in the case of some developments, not having some sort of incentive would make the project harder to get across the finish line, others argued.

“It’s a Catch-22,” City Council President Dana Sande said during the discussion on April 14. “Generally speaking, nobody wants to give a tax incentive. I much prefer our community afford these things without tax incentives, but without doing something, we run the risk of stagnation.”

Approval of these incentives requires a multi-step process. First, the City Council approves to have a developer to go through the pre-application process. That kicks off a financial review done by the city and its advisers at Baker Tilly that considers aspects like the debt and equity of the project, future values and market conditions.

In one of the latest projects being considered by the City Council — an apartment complex off 47th Avenue South being developed by Northridge Construction — having an exemption to at least some of the property taxes is the only way it's going to get completed, Baker Tilly Director Mikaela Huot told the council on June 9.

“Without the incentive through the exemption, the cash flow is not sufficient to do two things,” Huot said. "One, to meet minimum debt coverage requirements as necessary by their lender … and two, then there’s actually negative cash flow, so there’s no return on the equity investor for the project.”

Lately, the city has begun having projects go through the financial review process and the planning and zoning process simultaneously. Some projects, like Northridge’s, don’t need any zoning changes, but others, like Dakota Commercial’s 150-unit apartment development on 47th Avenue South, do.

If a project needs to be rezoned, that process can take at least two months. A tax incentive can take even longer between financial review and being considered by the governing bodies of Grand Forks. Northridge’s project, even though it doesn’t need a rezoning, will likely take from April to the end of July to work its way from pre-application to final approval if it goes through the whole process.

By doing the multiple parts of a project together, instead of doing the planning and zoning process and then the financial review process sequentially, Bochenski said it helps the city be more efficient.

“I think it made sense to see if the council wanted to look at those and see if something made sense before you spend a lot of work working on the rezoning,” Bochenski said. “I mean, if it’s not going to happen, why are you working on the rezoning? That’s how I look at it.
 


Lycanthrope

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 6, 2015
Posts
6,879
Likes
2,153
Points
758
Location
Bismarck
If we didn't do it someone else would be, does the offset of sustainable employment outweigh the cost of that tax incentive?
https://www.grandforksherald.com/ne...-large-projects-help-keep-grand-forks-growing
GRAND FORKS – Despite some criticism, giving property tax incentives to developers is key to keeping Grand Forks growing, according to Mayor Brandon Bochenski.

“You’re trying to get projects done that wouldn’t happen otherwise,” Bochenski said. “If you want to have long-term growth in the city, and you’ve gotten an opportunity to incentivize some things for a period of time, you’re going to get short-term benefits, but really it’s a long-term play to build up what our taxable value is per citizen.”

Numerous property tax incentives, usually in the form of an exemption for a period of time, have been making their way through the Grand Forks City Council. The specifics of the exemptions vary, but entities requesting an exemption will still pay taxes on the land and will pay the full property tax bill after the period of the exemption ends.

The exemptions being considered in 2025 have been longer than five years, which, per Century Code, also require approval from both the Grand Forks County Commission and the Grand Forks School Board.

“I think it’s beneficial — I truly do — to add some fuel to that fire and to promote some growth like we’ve been doing,” Bochenski said.

Offering these incentives has not been without concern for some on the City Council, and on other governing boards in Grand Forks. The council had an in-depth conversation about the incentives in April.

“I think if they would pay their fair share, maybe my taxes would go down,” Councilmember Rebecca Osowski said during that April 14 meeting. "I just feel like we're subsidizing rents."

However, in the case of some developments, not having some sort of incentive would make the project harder to get across the finish line, others argued.

“It’s a Catch-22,” City Council President Dana Sande said during the discussion on April 14. “Generally speaking, nobody wants to give a tax incentive. I much prefer our community afford these things without tax incentives, but without doing something, we run the risk of stagnation.”

Approval of these incentives requires a multi-step process. First, the City Council approves to have a developer to go through the pre-application process. That kicks off a financial review done by the city and its advisers at Baker Tilly that considers aspects like the debt and equity of the project, future values and market conditions.

In one of the latest projects being considered by the City Council — an apartment complex off 47th Avenue South being developed by Northridge Construction — having an exemption to at least some of the property taxes is the only way it's going to get completed, Baker Tilly Director Mikaela Huot told the council on June 9.

“Without the incentive through the exemption, the cash flow is not sufficient to do two things,” Huot said. "One, to meet minimum debt coverage requirements as necessary by their lender … and two, then there’s actually negative cash flow, so there’s no return on the equity investor for the project.”

Lately, the city has begun having projects go through the financial review process and the planning and zoning process simultaneously. Some projects, like Northridge’s, don’t need any zoning changes, but others, like Dakota Commercial’s 150-unit apartment development on 47th Avenue South, do.

If a project needs to be rezoned, that process can take at least two months. A tax incentive can take even longer between financial review and being considered by the governing bodies of Grand Forks. Northridge’s project, even though it doesn’t need a rezoning, will likely take from April to the end of July to work its way from pre-application to final approval if it goes through the whole process.

By doing the multiple parts of a project together, instead of doing the planning and zoning process and then the financial review process sequentially, Bochenski said it helps the city be more efficient.

“I think it made sense to see if the council wanted to look at those and see if something made sense before you spend a lot of work working on the rezoning,” Bochenski said. “I mean, if it’s not going to happen, why are you working on the rezoning? That’s how I look at it.
like stagnation is such a bad thing? It wouldnt make me sad to see bismarck slow down a bit.
 

johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
21,370
Likes
7,037
Points
948
Location
Dickinson
Those businesses will invite in the boogiety man and the children will all die.

this is a fools arrend

In fact the taxes need to be double for us to survive
 

Trip McNeely

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 16, 2015
Posts
2,395
Likes
2,249
Points
678
Location
Burleigh county
like stagnation is such a bad thing? It wouldnt make me sad to see bismarck slow down a bit.
I don’t disagree with what gf mayor is saying. To a degree I can understand the need for “incentives” to boost the “tax base” or a “long term play” here’s my issue to this as I feel these words are nothing more than a bait and switch to sell the idea. Not one time in my life have I heard any politician say these words (esp boosting the tax base) and it has a positive effect on the long term tax burden of the community. They are taking in more money and giving breaks which is being sold to the public as a good idea long term as it’ll decrease taxes….. when has that ever happened……. They end up with bigger budgets and taxpayers end up getting squeezed long term……. Anytime I hear any politician say these words i cringe….. i know what’s coming “long term”
 

Trip McNeely

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 16, 2015
Posts
2,395
Likes
2,249
Points
678
Location
Burleigh county
Kermit the Hoeven says this type of shit constantly for various projects throughout his career….. not once did growing the “tax base” help me with my portion of my tax burden……
 

Fester

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Posts
2,465
Likes
2,153
Points
618
Location
Space
Kermit the Hoeven says this type of shit constantly for various projects throughout his career….. not once did growing the “tax base” help me with my portion of my tax burden……
Because he has a business with lots of acountants to make sure tax incentives work for his business...
 


Obi-Wan

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
9,730
Likes
7,189
Points
958
Location
Bismarck
Kermit the Hoeven says this type of shit constantly for various projects throughout his career….. not once did growing the “tax base” help me with my portion of my tax burden……
The only thing that " growing the tax base " has accomplished is a larger government to feed and the results are higher taxes for everyone.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 216
  • This month: 192
  • This month: 128
  • This month: 69
  • This month: 68
  • This month: 67
  • This month: 63
  • This month: 55
  • This month: 50
  • This month: 44
Top Bottom