Recent Blog Posts
Legislation proposing changes to Ohio’s current agricultural use valuation (CAUV) program has remained on hold in the General Assembly since last fall. Senator Cliff Hite (R-Findlay) and Representative Brian Hill (R-Zanesville) introduced the companion bills on November 18, 2015. The Senate referred its bill, SB 246, to the Senate Ways and Means Committee on December 9, 2015 and House Bill 398 was referred to the House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee on January 20, 2016. Neither committee has acted on its bill.
Taking up Ohio Farm Bureau’s recommendations, the bill sponsors target two aspects of the CAUV program—the formula used to determine CAUV values and the valuation of land used for conservation practices or programs. To create more accurate valuations, the legislation proposes several changes to the CAUV formula:
• States additional factors to include in the rules that prescribe CAUV calculation methods. Currently, the rules must consider the productivity of the soil under normal management practices, the average price patterns of the crops and products produced to determine the income potential to be capitalized and the market value of the land for agricultural use. The proposed legislation adds two new factors: typical cropping and land use patterns and typical production costs.
• Clarifies that when determining the capitalization rate used in the CAUV formula, the tax commissioner cannot use a method that includes the buildup of equity or appreciation.
• Requires the tax commissioner to add a tax additur to the overall capitalization rate, and that the sum of the capitalization rate and tax additur “shall represent as nearly as possible the rate of return a prudent investor would expect from an average or typical farm in this state considering only agricultural factors.”
• Requires the commissioner to annually determine the overall capitalization rate, tax additur, agricultural land capitalization rate and the individual components used in computing those amounts and to publish the amounts with the annual publication of the per-acre agricultural use values for each soil type.
To remove disincentives for landowners who engage in conservation practices yet pay CAUV taxes at the same rate as if the land was in production, the proposed legislation:
• Requires that the land in conservation practices or devoted to a land retirement or conservation program as of the first day of a tax year be valued at the lowest valued of all soil types listed in the tax commissioner’s annual publication of per-acre agricultural use values for each soil type in the state.
• Provides for recalculation of the CAUV rate if the land ceases to be used for conservation within three years of its original certification for the reduced rate, and requires the auditor to levy a charge for the difference on the landowner who ceased the conservation practice or participation in the conservation program.
To access the bills and follow their status in the Ohio legislature, visit HB 398 here and SB 246 here.
For an explanation of the CAUV formula, see our Tax Bulletin "Why did my CAUV values increase so much?" available here.
Tags: cauv, current agricultural use valuation, differential tax assessment, real property tax
Comments: 0
Update: On April 21, 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request for en banc (full court) review of this decision made by agricultural groups and several states.
In a case successfully argued by Ohio’s Solicitor Eric Murphy, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals based in Cincinnati has determined that it has jurisdiction to hear challenges to the Clean Water Rule (WOTUS Rule) proposed by the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers. The Rule expands the geographic extent of the “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) that are subject to the Clean Water Act.
A brief background
When the agencies published the final WOTUS Rule last summer, dozens of parties and 31 states, including Ohio, filed challenges in nine federal district courts and eight federal courts of appeal. The filings raised an immediate uncertainty about whether federal district courts or federal courts of appeal have jurisdiction to review the Rule. Despite this uncertainty, the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota issued a temporary injunction that prevented the Rule’s application in the 13 states that were involved in that district’s litigation. Other district courts in West Virginia and Georgia declined to issue injunctions and instead ruled that they did not have jurisdiction to review the Rule. A federal panel consolidated the cases filed before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes the challenge by the State of Ohio. The Sixth Circuit first issued a nationwide stay of the WOTUS Rule last October before turning to the jurisdictional challenges raised by the EPA and Army Corps.
The Sixth Circuit’s fractured opinion
The decision on jurisdiction issued by the Sixth Circuit’s three judge panel is not harmonious. Judge McKeague wrote the court’s opinion and based jurisdiction on two of seven provisions in the Clean Water Act that grant appellate court jurisdiction to review EPA actions: subsection 1369 (b)(1)(E) for actions “approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation” under certain sections of the Act and subsection 1369(b)(1)(F), for actions issuing or denying National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Judge McKeague relies on a U.S. Supreme Court decision that interprets the “other limitations” language in 1369 (b)(1)(E) to include limitations that “indirectly” produce limitations on point source operators and permit issuing authorities. He also cites the Sixth Circuit’s earlier decision in National Cotton Council v. U.S. EPA to conclude that agency actions “issuing or denying” an NPDES permit under 1369(b)(1)(F) include actions creating “regulations governing the issues of permits” and “rules that regulate NPDES permitting procedures,” such as the WOTUS Rule.
A concurring opinion written by Judge Griffin agrees only with the requirement to follow the Sixth Circuit’s previous decision in National Cotton Council. Judge Griffin clarifies that he is bound by but does not agree with the court’s reasoning in that case, and would not otherwise accept jurisdiction under subsections 1369(b)(1)(E) or (F). In a dissenting opinion, Judge Keith agrees with the concurring opinion that neither subsection 1369(b)(1)(E) or (F) grants an appeals court jurisdiction in regards to the WOTUS Rule. Judge Keith also argues that Judge McKeague mistakenly relies upon and overly broadens the National Cotton Council decision, which he believes does not apply to the WOTUS Rule.
Implications
Despite the disagreements between the Sixth Circuit Court judges, the decision means that the nationwide stay of the WOTUS Rule remains in effect and the court will proceed to hear the circuit’s consolidated cases that challenge the WOTUS Rule. The court’s decision on jurisdiction applies only to the states within the Sixth Circuit—Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. Given the range of reasoning in the Sixth Circuit’s decision, other federal courts could reach differing decisions on the question of which court has jurisdiction over the cases. If so, we can expect a request for the United States Supreme Court to review the jurisdictional issue. As we expected, the WOTUS Rule challenges will be with us for quite some time.
Read the Sixth Circuit’s opinion for In re: U.S. Dep’t of Defense & U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency Final Rule: Clean Water Rule at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0045p-06.pdf.
The Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) has revised regulations that implement Ohio’s Cottage Food Law, which addresses the production and sale of certain “non-potentially hazardous” foods. An operation producing a “cottage food” may do so without licensing and inspection by ODA, but must follow labeling requirements and is subject to potential food sampling by ODA.
Changes to Ohio’s cottage food regulations include the following:
New cottage food products
Several new food items have joined the list of cottage food products that an operator may produce without licensing or inspection by ODA:
- Flavored honey produced by a beekeeper, if a minimum of 75% of the honey is from the beekeeper’s own hives;
- Fruit chutneys;
- Maple sugar produced by a maple syrup processor, if at least 75% of the sap used to make the maple syrup is collected directly from trees by the processor;
- Waffle cones dipped in candy;
- Dry soup mixes containing commercially dried vegetables, beans, grains, and seasonings.
Foods that are not cottage food products
Two revisions clarify foods that do not fall under the cottage food law:
- Fresh fruit that is dipped, covered, or otherwise incorporated with candy;
- Popping corn.
Fruit in granola products
If adding fruit to granola, granola bars, or granola bars dipped in candy, which are all cottage food products, the fruit must be commercially dried.
The new regulations became effective January 22, 2016. View the cottage food regulations at http://codes.ohio.gov/oac/901%3A3-20. Read our other posts on Ohio’s Cottage Food Law at https://farmoffice.osu.edu/blog-categories/food.
By Larry R. Gearhardt, Assistant Professor and Field Specialist in Taxation, OSU Extension
Farmers have enjoyed an exemption from the Ohio and county sales tax for many years. Historically, obtaining the exemption from the sales tax was relatively simple. The farmer merely filled out a post card sized exemption form at his local agricultural retailer, checked the box that he was involved in “agriculture,” and most of his subsequent purchases from that agricultural retailer were exempt.
More recent, agricultural retailers seem increasingly reluctant to give farmers the agricultural exemption. Numerous questions have arisen regarding why sales tax is being charged on certain items of tangible personal property that the farmer feels should be exempt.
Much has already been written on the subject of the agricultural exemption from sales tax. For a good overview of the agricultural sales tax exemption, see OCES Bulletin 761, written by Paul L. Wright, Douglas E. Sassen, and Nan M. Still, (November 1987), and Fact Sheet OAM-2-12, written by Chris Bruynis, PhD (2012). Both of these documents remain good resources.
However, to fully understand why sales tax is now being charged on items that once appeared to be exempt, one must delve deeper into the Ohio law and its practical application to purchases. The Ohio Revised Code, the Ohio Administrative Code, legal cases that further interpret those codes, the Ohio Department of Taxation, and the sales tax collection process all have a bearing on the agricultural exemption from sales tax.
ALL SALES BEGIN AS TAXABLE
Initially, all sales are taxable. Ohio Revised Code section 5739.02 states: “. . . an excise tax is hereby levied on each retail sale made in this state.” ORC sec. 5739.02(C) expands this requirement by stating: “(C) For the purpose of the proper administration of this chapter, and to prevent the evasion of the tax, it is presumed that all sales made in this state are subject to the tax until the contrary is established.” The effect of this statement is to place the burden of proving that a sale is exempt on the purchaser. As a general legal principle, exemptions from tax are narrowly construed.
HOW DO SALES BECOME NON-TAXABLE?
There are two ways that sales become non-taxable. One way is for a sale to be “excepted” from the definition of a sale by statute. The other way is for a sale to be “exempted” from the sales tax requirement.
A sale is non-taxable if it is specifically excepted from the definition of a “sale.” Ohio Revised Code section 5739.01(B) provides the definition of “sale” and the act of “selling.” One can find an extensive list of transactions that are considered to be a “sale” or the act of “selling” in this section. Also contained in this list are specific exceptions for transactions that are not considered to be sales or the act of selling within the legal definition.However, more important for our discussion, the agricultural sales tax exemption is an “exemption” from sales tax, not an “exception.” Therefore, this paper focuses on Ohio Revised Code section 5739.02 which provides a list of goods and services that are specifically exempted from the Ohio sales tax.
AGRICULTURAL SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS IN THE OHIO REVISED CODE
ORC section 5739.02(B) provides a list of 53 items that are specifically exempted from the Ohio sales tax. Several items apply to agriculture:
(B)(13) building and construction materials sold to construction contractors for incorporation into a horticulture structure or livestock structure for a person engaged in the business of horticulture or producing livestock. This exemption was later expanded by section (B)(36) to include sales to “persons” in addition to contractors.
(B)(30) land tile
(B)(31) portable grain bins
The subsection that applies most often to agriculture is (B)(17). This subsection states:
(B)(17) Sales to persons engaged in farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture, of tangible personal property for use or consumption primarily in the production by farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture of other tangible personal property for use or consumption for sale by farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture; or material and parts for incorporation into any such tangible personal property for use or consumption in production; and of tangible personal property for such use or consumption in the conditioning or holding of products produced by and for such use, consumption, or sale by persons engaged in farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture, except where such property is incorporated into real property.
In an attempt to better understand this subsection, let’s break it down into its requirements.
- The sale must be made to a person engaged in farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture;
- It must be an item of tangible personal property;
- The item of tangible personal property must be used or consumed primarily (more than 50%) in the production of another item of tangible personal property that will eventually be sold;
- The item can be material or parts incorporated into tangible personal property for use or consumption in farming;
- The item can be for use or consumption in the conditioning or holding of products produced by a person involved in farming, agriculture, horticulture, or floriculture, for further use, consumption, or sale, EXCEPT where such item is incorporated into real property.
THE OHIO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE PROVIDES FURTHER CLARIFICATION
The Ohio Revised Code contains the laws passed by the Ohio General Assembly. In contrast, the Ohio Administrative Code contains the rules that agencies use to implement those laws. The rules in the Ohio Administrative Code are promulgated by the agency that is responsible to administer the program and those rules are then reviewed and approved by another agency called the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review.
Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) rules have a more direct impact on the agricultural sales tax exemption because they are promulgated by the Ohio Department of Taxation and serve as the guidelines for collecting the sales tax.
OAC section 5703-9-23 expands the agricultural sales tax exemption provided in the Ohio Revised Code. This section first provides the definitions for “farming”, “agriculture”, “horticulture”, and “floriculture.” “Farming” is defined as the occupation of tilling the soil for the production of crops as a business and shall include the raising of farm livestock, bees, or poultry, where the purpose is to sell such livestock, bees, or poultry, or the products thereof as a business. “Agriculture” is defined as the cultivation of the soil for the purpose of producing vegetables and fruits and includes gardening and horticulture, together with the feeding and raising of cattle or stock for sale as a business.
Note that the definitions of “farming” and “agriculture” include tilling the soil and cultivation of the soil. Therefore, taking all of the requirements together, the agricultural sales tax exemption has been allowed only for those items that are used directly and primarily in the tilling or cultivation of the soil, used in the propagation of plants, or the care and raising of livestock. Timber is not included, nor is a utility vehicle or a chain saw if the technical definition is strictly followed.
OAC section 5703-9-23 further expands what “sales” are tax-exempt. Most of those sales are items that are incorporated into, or used or consumed, producing other tangible personal property for sale.
OAC section 5703-9-23 concludes with three very important statements:
- Exemptions do not apply to any article which is incorporated into real property
- The tax or non-tax of a sale is determined by the use of the item sold. An article of tangible personal property that appears to be agricultural in nature must also be used for a non-taxable purpose. For example, a pitch fork used in my barn may be tax-exempt, but taxable if primarily used in my garden.
- Sales of materials such as lumber, nails, glass and similar items to be used in the construction or repair of buildings shall be subject to the tax.
CASE LAW PROVIDES THE FINAL DETERMINATION
Even with the foregoing analysis of the laws and rules, it is impossible to list every item of tangible personal property that is exempt from sales tax. Certain items are clearly used in agriculture and are exempt. On the other hand, some items are clearly not exempt. Some items fall somewhere in the middle and are difficult to tell whether they are tax-exempt, either because the item is used for a personal use a majority of the time or the items could be used for a taxable purpose.
Occasionally, courts are asked to determine the taxability of a particular item. This is most often seen where the resulting sales tax is large enough to warrant spending the money to go to court, such as a manufacturer that is going to produce or purchase mass quantities of that item. Individuals rarely can warrant going to court over a sales tax dispute.
THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE AGRICULTURAL SALES TAX EXEMPTION
Armed with the best legal information, a farmer may firmly believe that the item he is purchasing should be tax-exempt. However, the cash register rings up that the sale as taxable. Does he have to pay the sales tax? Yes, from a practical standpoint. There are two ways to look at each situation – the legal way and the practical way. From a practical point of view, the farmer may still have to pay the sales tax at the cash register even though he feels that the item is tax-exempt. However, if the farmer is erroneously required to pay the sales tax, he/she must file an application for a refund (ST-AR form) with the Ohio Department of Taxation.
Let’s take a closer look at the collection process. Both ORC section 5739.02(C) and OAC section 5703-9-03 state that all sales are presumed to be taxable until the contrary is established. Each vendor is required to collect from the consumer, as a trustee of the State, the full and exact amount of the tax payable on each taxable sale. To be tax-exempt, the farmer must provide to the vendor a fully completed exemption certificate. The vendor is required to keep this exemption certificate on file.
In discussions with some local retailers, I discovered that one large agricultural retailer receives a list of taxable and non-taxable items from its corporate office and the local store is required to collect the sales tax according to the list, notwithstanding the identity of the purchaser. Conversely, the local tractor store determines in-house which items are taxable or non-taxable and for items that may go either way, the store gives the exemption if the purchaser has a tax-exempt form on file. For other large retailers without an agricultural base, they do not recognize the agricultural sales tax exemption.
Exemption forms are available on the Ohio Department of Taxation’s website and may be reproduced. The farmer should use form STEC-U for a unit exemption or STEC-B for a blanket exemption if he is going to purchase numerous items from that vendor. If the farmer wants a refund of sales tax that he feels is erroneously paid, he should file form STAR with the Ohio Department of Taxation. Rather than receiving a cash refund of the sales tax erroneously paid, the farmer may apply the refund to any indebtedness that he owes the State, for example, income tax.EXEMPTION CERTIFICATES
As previously mentioned, exemption forms may be obtained from the Ohio Department of Taxation website. OAC section 5703-9-03(D) states that: “An exemption certificate is fully completed if it contains the following data elements:
- The purchaser’s name and business address,
- A tax identification (e.g. vendor’s license or consumer’s use tax account) for the purchaser issued by this state, if any,
- The purchaser’s type of business or organization,
- The reason for the claimed exemption, and
- If the certificate is in hard copy, the signature of the purchaser.
If any of these elements is missing the exemption certificate is invalid.”
There has been some confusion recently caused by some agriculture retailers advising farmers that if they want the sales tax exemption, the farmer needs to go to the county courthouse and obtain a vendor’s license. This is not correct. The retailer is trying to comply with the requirement found in subsection (D)(2) above where it states that the exemption certificate requires a tax identification number. However, the retailer’s advice ignores the last two words of that section – “if any.” Farmers are not required to obtain a vendor’s license because they do not sell at retail. I recommend that the farmer write “none required” or “not applicable” on the exemption form where it requests a tax identification number. Of course, then the farmer is burdened with explaining to the cash register attendee that a vendor’s license number is not required. Good luck with that.
ULTIMATE LIABILITY FOR SALES TAX
Many farmers believe that if they give a tax exemption form to the retailer, the farmer should not be ultimately responsible for the sales tax. However, both the purchaser and the vendor may ultimately be liable for the tax. Initially, the purchaser is responsible to pay the sales tax to the vendor. If the purchaser claims that the sale is non-taxable, he/she must provide an exemption certificate to the vendor specifying the reason that the sale is non-taxable (ORC 5739.03(A)).
A vendor that obtains a fully completed exemption certificate from a purchaser is initially relieved of liability for collecting and remitting tax on any sale covered by that certificate. If it is later determined that the exemption was improperly claimed, ORC section 5739.03(B)(1)(b) makes the purchaser liable for any tax due on that sale.If a vendor improperly fails to collect the sales tax, another section of the ORC makes either the purchaser OR the vendor personally liable for the sales tax. ORC section 5739.13 says that the tax commissioner may make an assessment against either the vendor or the purchaser as the facts require. An assessment against a vendor when the tax has not been collected shall not discharge the purchaser’s liability to reimburse the vendor for the tax. From a practical standpoint, the vendor would have to take steps to collect the unpaid tax from the purchaser.
To put additional pressure on a vendor to collect and remit the sales tax, ORC section 5739.33 states that if any vendor required to file (sales tax) returns for any reason fails to file the return or remit payment, any employee having control or supervision over the filing of returns and making payments, or any officer, member, manager, or trustee who is responsible for the vendor’s fiscal responsibilities shall be personally responsible. The amount due may be assessed against that person.
Because of this liability exposure, from both a corporate and personal standpoint, it is my opinion that the vendor is going to err on the side of collecting the sales tax if it is not clear that the item is non-taxable.
CONCLUSION
Even though it may appear from a legal standpoint that the purchase of an item should be tax-exempt, without a complete list of what items are taxable and non-taxable from the Ohio Department of Taxation, there is still room for confusion. The vendor initially determines whether the item is non-taxable at the cash register. The purchaser needs to provide a tax-exemption certificate to the vendor to receive the sales tax exemption. If the vendor collects sales tax on an item that the farmer feels is tax-exempt, the farmer should file a request for a refund with the Ohio Department of Taxation.
By Larry Gearhardt, OSU Extension Tax School Director
On December 18, 2015, Congress passed and the President signed into law an agreement on tax extenders and numerous other tax provisions in the “Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) of 2015” (the Act). Tax extenders are the 50+ tax provisions that are routinely extended by Congress on a one- or two-year basis. The Act makes permanent many of the individual and business extenders. Some of the more pertinent provisions are as follows:
Section 179 Expense Deduction
Under Sec. 179 of the Internal Revenue Code, a taxpayer may elect to deduct as an expense, rather than to depreciate over time, up to a specified amount, the cost of new or used tangible personal property placed in service during the tax year in the taxpayer’s trade or business. In this case, “taxpayer” does not include an estate, trust, or certain non-corporate lessors. The maximum annual expensing amount generally is reduced dollar-for-dollar by the amount of Code Sec. 179 property placed in service during the tax year in excess of a specified investment ceiling.
The old law provided that, for 2015, the maximum expensing limit was $25,000 and the investment ceiling was $200,000. Pursuant to the new law, the expensing limit was increased to $500,000 and the investment ceiling was increased to $2,000,000 before the phase-out begins. These amounts were made retroactive to the beginning of 2015 and they were made permanent for future use. In addition, for any tax year beginning after December 31, 2015, both the $500,000 and the $2,000,000 are indexed for inflation.
The amount eligible to be expensed in a tax year cannot exceed the taxable income derived from the taxpayer’s active conduct of a trade or business. The amount deducted under Code Sec. 179 can offset the taxpayer’s income, but it cannot be used to create a loss. However, any amount that is not allowed as a deduction because of the taxable income limitation may be carried forward to succeeding tax years.
“Eligible property” for Code Sec. 179 purposes is any tangible property that is Code Sec. 1245 property (generally machinery and equipment) depreciated under the MACRS rules of Code Sec. 168, regardless of its depreciation recovery period. In short, if you can depreciate it, the property would qualify for Sec. 179 treatment. “Eligible property” includes machinery and equipment; property contained in or attached to a building (other than structural components), such as milk tanks, automatic feeders, barn cleaners, and office equipment; livestock, including horses, cattle, hogs, sheep, goats, mink and other fur bearing animals; grain bins; single purpose livestock and horticultural structures; and agricultural fences and drainage tile. Both new and used property qualifies.
The Code Sec. 179 deduction applies to the tax year when the eligible property is “placed in service.” This may be different than the date of purchase. Property is “placed in service” when it is ready and available for a specific use, even if the item is not being currently used. Warning: writing a check on the last day of the year to purchase new machinery or equipment does not automatically qualify that item to be deducted in that tax year. In addition to writing the check, the machinery or equipment must be ready and available to use in that tax year. This may be extremely important when taking on a long-term project, such as constructing a building.
A Code Sec. 179 deduction is taken on tax form 4562. The taxpayer may elect to deduct the entire cost of the property (within limitations), none of the cost, or a portion of the cost of the item. Even though Code Sec. 179 provides for a “deduction,” taking the deduction reduces the basis in the property the same as if it was depreciated. A “recapture” of the deduction may be triggered if the item is later sold for more than its basis.
Bonus First-Year Depreciation Extended Through 2019
There was no Accelerated First-Year Depreciation (AFYD) for 2015 under the old law. Under the new law, Congress provided some future stability by providing for AFYD through 2019, albeit on a decreasing scale. Eligible taxpayers will be able to claim:
- A 50% bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property placed in service in 2015, 2016, and 2017;
- A 40% bonus depreciation allowance for qualified property placed in service in 2018; and
- A 30% bonus depreciation allowance for property placed in service in 2019.
In general, property qualifies for the bonus depreciation allowance if it is property to which the modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) rules apply with a recovery period of 20 years or less. This includes virtually all of the items used in agriculture. Unlike the Code Sec. 179 expense deduction, which applies to both new and used property, the bonus depreciation allowance applies to only new property. Its original use must commence with the taxpayer.
The bonus depreciation allowance is also taken on tax form 4562. The basis of the property and the depreciation allowances in the year of purchase and later years are appropriately adjusted to reflect the additional first-year depreciation deduction. A taxpayer may elect out of additional first-year depreciation for any class of property (as opposed to an individual item) for any tax year.
New Rule for Plants With Long Production Periods
The Act contains a special new rule for plants planted or grafted after December 31, 2015 and before January 1, 2020. Bonus depreciation is allowed for certain trees, vines, and plants bearing fruit or nuts when planted or grafted rather than when the plant reaches income-producing stage. Under the old law, for depreciation purposes, fruit-bearing or nut-bearing plants were deemed “placed in service” when they reached an income-producing stage. The “placed in service” rule was relaxed in the Act so that a fruit-bearing or nut-bearing plant is deemed “placed in service” when planted or grafted. Therefore, plants with a long pre-production period can qualify for the bonus depreciation allowance under the new law.
A “specified plant” that qualifies is a plant, planted or grafted in the United States, that is: (1) any tree, vine, or plant that bears fruit or nuts; or (2) any other plant that will have more than one yield of fruits or nuts and generally has a pre-productive period of more than two years from the time of planting or grafting to the time that the plant bears fruit or nuts.
Other Extended Provisions Worth Noting
In addition to the foregoing provisions, the PATH Act extended the following provisions, among others:
- A permanent extension of the general state and local sales tax deduction.
- A permanent extension of the $250 educator expense deduction.
- A permanent extension of the Credit for Increasing Research Activities (research credit).
- A permanent extension of the 15-year recovery period for qualified leasehold improvements, qualified restaurant property and qualified retail improvements.
- An extension of the tuition and fees deduction through 2016.
- An extension of the nonbusiness energy credit through 2016.
- An extension of mortgage insurance premiums paid or accrued as an itemized deduction through 2016.
- An extension of the qualified principal residence indebtedness exclusion for debt discharge income through 2016.
Grain bins are “business fixtures” that are personal property not subject to real property tax, according to a decision issued today by the Ohio Supreme Court.
The court case arose when the Metamora Elevator Company challenged the Fulton County auditor’s inclusion of grain storage bins in the company’s real property valuation. Metamora filed complaints with the county Board of Revision, arguing that the grain bins are business fixtures that should not be included in the company’s real property assessment. The Board of Revision disagreed with Metamora and the company appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA).
The Fulton County BTA ruled in favor of the company, determining that grains bins are personal property and should not be taxed as real property. The BTA reduced Metamora’s real property value by nearly $1.1 million, the value of the grain bins. Fulton County requested a review of the BTA decision by the Ohio Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. The issue before the Court was whether the grain bins are “fixtures” or “improvements” that are subject to real property tax or whether they are not subject to real property tax because they are “business fixtures” that qualify as personal property.
Ohio Supreme Court’s reasoning
In its decision authored by Justice O’Donnell, the Supreme Court explained that the legislature amended the Ohio Revised Code in 1992 to clarify the historically “elusive” distinction between real and personal property in Ohio. The court stated that the changes expressed a clear intent to identify fixtures as real property while defining business fixtures as personal property, according to two of th revised sections of Ohio law:
- ORC 5701.02(A), which states that “real property” includes “land itself * * * and, unless otherwise specified in this section or section 5701.03 of the Revised Code, all buildings, structures, improvements, and fixtures of whatever kind on the land.”
- ORC 5701.03(B), which defines “business fixture” as “an item of tangible personal property that has become permanently attached or affixed to the land or to a building, structure, or improvement, and that primarily benefits the business conducted by the occupant on the premises and not the realty. Business fixture includes, but is not limited to, machinery, equipment, signs, storage bins and tanks, whether above or below ground, and broadcasting, transportation, transmission, and distribution systems, whether above or below ground.
“Our analysis need go no further than to apply the expressed intent of the General Assembly to the undisputed facts of this case,” said the Court, and concluded that the legislature clearly intended for the term “business fixture” to include storage bins, and therefore to define storage bins as personal property not subject to real property tax.
The Court rejected the two arguments advanced by the county, that property classification cases depend upon what constitutes an “improvement” under the Ohio Constitution and that it would be unconstitutional for the legislature to classify constitutional “improvements” such as fixtures or structures as personal property simply because the fixtures might be used in business. Because the grain bins related more to the personal business than to the land, based on the definition of “business fixture” in ORC 5701.03, the Court saw no conflict between the personal property classification and the Ohio Constitution.
Implications for agriculture
Fulton County may not be the only county that classifies grain bins as real property for tax purposes. Landowners who own grain bins should review their property tax records and determine whether the real property value includes the value of grain bins located on the parcel. If the property tax does incorporate grain bin values, consult with the county auditor to discuss the situation. Ohio law allows a county auditor to correct "clerical errors" made in the collection of real property taxes, although there is a question of whether inclusion of grain bins in the real property value constitutes a clerical error. Ohio law also provides remedies for taxpayers who have overpaid taxes; landowners should consult with a tax attorney for guidance on these remedies. Note that filing a complaint with the Board of Revision is not an option, as March 30 was the deadline for filing complaints for the current tax year.
The case of Metamora Elevator Co. v. Fulton Cty. Bd. of Revision, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-2807 is available on the Ohio Supreme Court’s website, here.
Tags: tax, real property tax, grain bin taxation, personal property
Comments: 0
Ohio's newest legislation addressing water quality concerns became effective on July 3, 2015. The new law, enacted by the Ohio legislature earlier this year as Senate Bill 1, affects Ohio agriculture with the following provisions:
1. Fertilizer application restrictions in the western basin. In the western basin of Lake Erie, a person may not apply fertilizer (defined as nitrogen or phosphorous) under these conditions:
- On snow-covered or frozen soil
- When the top two inches of soil are saturated from precipitation
- In a granular form when the local weather forecast for the application area contains greater than a 50% chance of precipitation exceeding one inch in a twelve-hour period
Exceptions—the above restrictions do not apply if the fertilizer is:
- Injected into the ground
- Incorporated within 24 hours of surface application
- Applied onto a growing crop
2. Manure application restrictions in the western basin. In the western basin of Lake Erie, a person may not surface apply manure (defined as animal excreta) under these conditions:
- On snow-covered or frozen soil
- When the top two inches of soil are saturated from precipitation
- When the local weather forecast for the application area contains greater than a 50% chance of precipitation exceeding 1/2 inch in a 24 hour period
Exceptions—the above restrictions do not apply if the manure is:
- Injected into the ground
- Incorporated within 24 hours of surface application
- Applied onto a growing crop
- Or if, in the event of an emergency, the chief of the division of soil and water resources provides written consent and the application is in accordance with NRCS practice standard code 590.
3. Exemptions for small and medium operations. Small and medium agricultural operations in the western basin, defined by number of species using the same criteria as Ohio Department of Agriculture's (ODA's) livesock environmental permitting program, may apply to the chief of the division of soil and water resources for a temporary exemption from the restrictions on manure applications.
- A medium agricultural operation may be exempt for one year, up to July 3, 2016.
- A small operation may be exempt for two years, up to July 3, 2017.
- An exempt operation will not be subject to civil penalties for violations if working toward compliance and may request technical assistance to reach compliance standards.
4. Certification requirements for any persons using manure from CAFFs anywhere in Ohio. On 50 acres or more used in agricultural production anywhere in Ohio, no person may apply manure from a concentrated animal feeding facility regulated under a permit from ODA's Division of Livestock Environmental Permitting unless:
- The person has obtain Certified Livestock Manager (CLM) certification by ODA.
- The person has been certified by ODA through Ohio's fertilizer applicator certification program.
Complying with the new law
To ensure compliance with Senate Bill 1's fertilizer and manure restrictions that are now effective in Ohio, producers should consider these questions before making an application of manure or fertilizer:
1. Will the application of fertilizer or manure occur in the western basin of Lake Erie? If so, the new restrictions may apply to the application. A map that outlines the 11 watersheds and all or parts of 25 counties that comprise the western basin is available here.
- Does the application involve a restricted nutrient? The new restrictions apply to any application that involves nitrogen, phosphorous or any type of animal manure.
- Will the restricted nutrient be injected into the ground, incorporated within 24 hours, applied onto a growing crop or made with permission of the chief of soil and water resources due to an emergency involving manure applications? If so, the application is permissible as an exception to the restrictions.
-
If one of the above exceptions does not apply to the application, do weather conditions prohibit the application?
- Is the ground frozen, snow covered or saturated two inches deep or more? If so, the application is prohibited.
- Is there a greater than 50% chance that precipitation will exceed one inch in the next 12 hours for the area where the application will occur? If so, an application of granular fertilizer is prohibited.
- Is there a greater than 50% chance that precipitation will exceed one-half inch in the next 24 hours for the area where the application will occur? If so, an application of manure is prohibited.
- Refer to OSU Extension's C.O.R.N. newsletter for guidance on how to obtain important precipitation information prior to an application.
2. Is a temporary exemption from the manure restrictions available? If manure applications will be made by a "small" or "medium" animal feeding facility in the western basin, the facility may request the temporary exemption from the restrictions. Refer to ODA's explanation of what qualifies as a small or medium animal feeding facility on its website, here.
3. Is the manure or fertilizer obtained from a confined animal feeding facility regulated by ODA's Division of Livestock Environmental Permitting and to be applied on more than 50 acres of land in agricultural production anywhere in Ohio? If so, the person applying the manure or fertilizer must be certified by ODA as a Certified Livestock Manager or agricultural fertilizer applicator. A tool to search for concentrated animal feeding facilities operating under permit is available on ODA's website, here, as is information about CLM certification and the agricultural fertilizer certification program.
Non-compliance risk
ODA has authority to investigate potential violations of the new fertilizer application restrictions and the Division of Soil and Water Resources has similar authority over potential violations of manure application restrictions. The agencies may investigate upon receiving a complaint from any person or receiving any information that suggests a potential violation. If a violation has occurred or is occurring, the law grants the agencies rulemaking authority to establish penalty amounts for violations, which may not exceed $10,000 per separate violation. To date, the agencies have not yet initiated proposed rules for the penalty amounts. The agencies may not assess penalties until after providing an alleged violator opportunity for a hearing.
Due to the risk of non-compliance with the new law, producers should review insurance policies and determine whether insurance coverage exists or is available for a mishap under the new law.
Tags: fertilizer application, manure application, manure regulation, Lake Erie
Comments: 0
By Larry R. Gearhardt, Assistant Professor and Field Specialist, Taxation
Owners of Agricultural land enrolled in the Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) property tax program in the twenty-four counties that are experiencing a reappraisal or triennial update in 2015 (payable in 2016) will see the highest CAUV values in history, based on preliminary numbers from the Ohio Department of Taxation. Similar to prior years, increases in values will be in the vicinity of 100% to 200%. However, lower crop prices and changes made to the CAUV formula by the Ohio Department of Taxation point to lower CAUV values in the future.
WHAT IS CAUV?
In 1972, Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment that allowed qualified agricultural land to be valued at its current agricultural use value for real property tax purposes rather than fair market value. The home, home site and outbuildings are still valued at fair market value.
Current agricultural use value can be determined by the capitalization of the typical net income from agricultural crops on a given parcel of land assuming typical management, cropping patterns, and yields for the types of soil present on the tract.
HOW IS CAUV CALCULATED?
The CAUV values are based upon a formula containing five factors applied to three crops: corn, soybeans, and wheat, the three most prevalent crops in Ohio. Hay was dropped from the formula in 2010. The five factors are:
1.) Cropping pattern- based upon the acres of corn, beans and wheat compared to the total acres of those three crops. These percentages are based upon statewide averages.
2.) Crop prices- based upon a survey by NASS of elevators in Ohio
3.) Crop yields- based upon 1984 NRCS/NASS per acre yield estimates for each soil type, adjusted for actual average yields in Ohio for the past ten years.
4.) Non-land production costs- based upon farmer surveys by The Ohio State University.
5.) Capitalization rate- based upon the interest rate for a 15-year fixed rate mortgage at Farm Credit Services, with 40% attributed to equity and 60% to debt.
The crop prices, non-land production costs and capitalization rate are calculated by taking the previous seven years of numbers, eliminating the highest number and the lowest number, and then averaging the remaining five numbers. Cropping pattern is based on an average of the last five years of acres planted. The prices, cropping pattern, costs and yields are then multiplied, added and subtracted to determine the net profit per acre of soil type, and that number is then divided by the capitalization rate to arrive at the final value. This calculation is performed for each of the 3500 soil types in Ohio.
LOWER CROP PRICES IN 2014
For the second consecutive year, the price for corn, beans, and wheat that came into the formula is lower than the prior year. The price for corn that came into the formula for 2014 is $3.65/bu. compared to $4.41 for 2013. Similarly, the 2014 price for soybeans that came into the formula is $10.40 compared to $13.00 for 2013. Likewise, the new 2014 wheat price is $5.55 versus $6.54 for 2013.
NOT AN IMMEDIATE EFFECT
One or two years of lower crop prices will not produce a noticeable decrease in CAUV values. There needs to be a trend lasting several years to substantially reduce the values. A trend is required because the crop prices used in calculating CAUV values are based on a seven-year rolling average, with the highest price and the lowest price during that seven-year period thrown out.
Using corn as an example, the corn prices used in the 2015 calculation for the last seven years are:
2008 - $4.21
2009 - $3.55
2010 - $5.45
2011 - $6.44
2012 - $7.09
2013 - $4.41
2014 - $3.65
Since $3.55 is the lowest price and $7.09 is the highest price, they are removed from the calculation. The average of the remaining five numbers is $4.79. After a management allowance of 5%, which is allowed in the formula, the price for corn used in the 2015 formula is $4.55. Please remember that these numbers are preliminary and may change before finalization of the 2015 values. There is a similar trend for the calculation of the prices for soybeans and wheat.
Continuing to use corn as an example, it will take several years of lower crop prices to substantially lower land values for CAUV purposes. Real property is revalued every three years for tax purposes. Therefore, property being revalued in 2015 will not be revalued again until 2018. During that time, three years’ worth of crop prices will drop out of the formula and will be replaced by three new years’. If the three new years’ crop prices are lower than $6.44, it is likely that there will be a decrease in CAUV values. Based on experts’ opinions and forecasts, such appears to be the case.
CHANGES TO THE FORMULA BY THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION
In response to the alarming increases in CAUV values over the past several years, attorneys at the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation researched and reviewed the CAUV formula in greater detail than it has ever been reviewed since its inception. As a result of this review, Ohio Farm Bureau made several recommendations to the Ohio Department of Taxation to update portions of the formula to more accurately reflect current values. These recommendations do not substantially change the way that CAUV is calculated, but rather to update the data contained in the formula.
The Ohio Department of Taxation has agreed with several of the recommendations forwarded by Ohio Farm Bureau. Therefore, the changes that will appear in the 2015 CAUV calculations are:
- TIMELINESS OF DATA – There has always been a two-year lag period between the collection of the data used in the CAUV formula and the finalization of the values for use by county auditors. This became especially troublesome in a year like 2014 when the price of soybeans fell from $13.00/bu. To $10.40/bu., but CAUV values doubled. Soybean prices dropped even lower by the end of the year and continue to fall in 2015. Because of the two-year lag period, it took two years for these lower prices to appear in the formula. Then, the lower number may be thrown out of the calculation if it was the lowest during the seven-year look back period.
By adjusting the schedule of when CAUV values are calculated, the Ohio Department of Taxation was able to cut the two-year lag period to one year. Therefore, lower crop prices, and potentially higher costs, will come into the formula more quickly and CAUV values will be more current. One consequence of this change is that county auditors will not receive the updated values until later in the year of reappraisal or update.
- CAPITALIZATION RATE – CAUV values are calculated by dividing the projected net income per acre by the capitalization rate for each of the 3500+ soil types in Ohio. A small change in the capitalization rate can have a big impact on CAUV values. For example, a $200 per acre net return divided by a capitalization rate of 6% results in a $3,333 value. If the capitalization rate increases to 7%, the same $200 per acre net return divided by 7% results in a $2,857 value. Low capitalization rates are good if you are borrowing money; they are not beneficial when calculating CAUV.
The Ohio Department of Taxation adjusted the calculation of the capitalization rate to more accurately reflect current borrowing patterns. The capitalization rate is now based upon a ratio where 80% is considered debt and 20% is considered equity. This is compared to a 60/40 ratio used in prior years. Furthermore, the mortgage interest rate (which is the starting point of the capitalization rate calculation) is based on a 25-year fixed multi-flex rate for loans $25,000 or greater at Farm Credit Services. The prior years’ mortgage interest rate was based on a 15-year loan period.
Although the capitalization rate used in the 2015 calculation went down from 7.5% in 2012 (the previous time CAUV was calculated for counties in this cycle) to 6.5% (contributing to the increase in CAUV values), the capitalization rate between 2014 and 2015 increased from 6.2% to 6.5%. As previously stated, higher capitalization rates contribute to lower CAUV values.
- WOODLAND VALUES – Woodland values have increased more dramatically than cropland values, especially if the woodland is located in a high-productivity geographic region. Woodland values are calculated by the same process used to calculate cropland values, with the additional step of subtracting the cost of drainage per acre (for Class I and II soils) and the cost of clearing the land per acre. Since the inception of the program, once the cropland value is determined, there has been a reduction in value for woodlands of $500 per acre for subsurface tile drainage for somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained soils. In addition, for 37 soil types, there has been a $250 per acre reduction for surface drainage. There is a $500 per acre reduction allowed for clearing the land for all soil types.
What has occurred in recent years is that the calculation of cropland values is so high that, even with the aforementioned reductions, woodland values have been bumped from minimum value to a value similar to crop producing soils. This scenario is exacerbated if the woodland happens to be located in a high-productivity geographic region.
The Ohio Department of Taxation has increased the reductions for woodland from $500 to $770 per acre for subsurface tile drainage in somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained soils; from $250 to $380 per acre for surface drainage in 37 soil types; and from $500 to $1,000 per acre for land clearing in all soil types.
SUMMARY
If the trend of lower crop prices continues, couple with the changes to the formula made by the Ohio Department of Taxation, CAUV values will decrease in the future. Nobody likes paying taxes and it is hard to prepare for tax increases of 100% to 200%. But if CAUV landowners can swallow the bitter pill of paying higher property taxes through 2015, while receiving lower crop prices, the CAUV formula will work to decrease property taxes to more accurately reflect the farm economy. Think of it as a roller coaster with crop prices in the front car and CAUV values in the back car. Ultimately, the roller coaster ends up in the same place.
(This information was taken from an article by Michael Cohn, Washington DC, appearing in Accounting Today News on April 8, 2015)
The consumer finance site WalletHub has released a new report ranking the states with the highest and lowest real estate and vehicle property taxes across the country.
The report found the highest real estate taxes in the following states: 43. Vermont ($2,934); 44. Michigan ($3,168); 45. Nebraska ($3,228); 46. Connecticut ($3,301); 47. Texas ($3,327); 48. Wisconsin ($3,398); 49. New Hampshire ($3,649); 50. Illinois ($3,939); and 51. New Jersey ($3,971). The state with the lowest average real property tax is Hawaii at $482.
Ohio comes in at number 40 with an average real property tax of $2,677. Among the surrounding states, this compares to Michigan at $3,168, Pennsylvania at $2,597, West Virginia at $1,015, Kentucky at $1,145, and Indiana at $1,507.
However, Ohio does not levy any vehicle property tax, while twenty-seven states across the country do. Those include Michigan at $110, West Virginia at $378, Kentucky at $286, and Indiana at $300. Like Ohio, Pennsylvania has no vehicle property tax.
Nationwide, the average American household spends an average of $2,089 on real estate property taxes each year, and residents of the twenty-seven states that levy a vehicle property tax shell out another $423 annually.
Ohio’s Senate and House of Representatives have agreed upon a final bill intended to control algae production in Lake Erie and its western basin. Senate Bill 1, as amended by the House, passed both chambers on March 25 and now awaits Governor Kasich’s signature. (Post note: Governor signed the bill on April 2, 2015; its effective date is July 3, 2015).
The law will regulate manure and fertilizer applications in the western basin of Lake Erie, require monitoring of phosphorous for certain publicly owned treatment works, regulate the placement of dredged materials in Lake Erie and its tributaries, change how the Healthy Lake Erie Fund may be used and establish agency coordination and research on harmful algae management and response.
In regards to fertilizer and manure applications, the legislation includes two new amendments that were not part of the original bills passed earlier by the Senate and House:
- Certification requirements for persons using manure from CAFFs. To utilize manure from a concentrated animal feeding facility that is regulated under ODA’s Division of Livestock Environmental Permitting, a person must hold either a Certified Livestock Manager license or certification under Ohio’s new fertilizer applicator certification program. The provision pertains only if applying the manure for agricultural production on more than 50 acres. This language closes the proclaimed “loophole” that allowed persons to receive and apply manure from a livestock facility without being subject to the same regulations as the facility. ORC 903.40.
- Exemptions for small and medium operations. Small and medium agricultural operations may apply for a temporary exemption from the law’s restrictions on manure applications. The chief of the division of soil and water resources may grant an exemption of up to one year for a medium agricultural operation and up to two years for a small operation, if the operation is working toward compliance. An exempted operation may request technical assistance to reach compliance, and will not be subject to civil penalties for violations. The law defines small and medium agricultural operations in the same way as the Livestock Environmental Permitting program, based on the number of livestock according to species. ORC 1511(D).
Other changes to the final bill include a removal of a five-year sunset provision and attempts to address lead contamination. The final bill contains the following provisions:
Fertilizer application restrictions in the western basin
For applications of fertilizer in the western basin, a person may not apply fertilizer, defined as nitrogen or phosphorous, under these conditions:
(1) On snow-covered or frozen soil, or
(2) When the top two inches of soil are saturated from precipitation, or
(3) In a granular form when the local weather forecast for the application area contains greater than a 50% chance of precipitation exceeding one inch in a twelve-hour period,
unless the fertilizer is injected into the ground, incorporated within 24 hours of surface application or applied onto a growing crop.
Small and medium operations may apply for a temporary exemption from the restrictions, as explained above. The ODA will have authority to investigate complaints of potential violations and to assess penalties for violations, which may not exceed $10,000 for each violation.
Manure application restrictions in the western basin
A person may not surface apply manure in the western basin under any of the following circumstances:
(1) On snow-covered or frozen soil;
(2) When the top two inches of soil are saturated from precipitation;
(3) When the local weather forecast for the application area contains greater than a 50% chance of precipitation exceeding one-half inch in a 24 hour period.
unless the manure is injected into the ground, incorporated within 24 hours of surface application, applied onto a growing crop, or if in the event of an emergency, the chief of the division of soil and water resources or the chief's designee provides written consent and the manure application is made in accordance with procedures established in the United States department of agriculture natural resources conservation service practice standard code 590 prepared for this state.
Small and medium operations may apply for a temporary exemption from the restrictions, as explained above. The ODA will have authority to investigate complaints of potential violations and to assess penalties for violations, which may not exceed $10,000 for each violation.
Applications of sewage sludge
In issuing sewage sludge management permits, the director of Ohio EPA may not allow the placement of sludge on frozen ground.
Agency responsibilities for harmful algal management and response
- The law appoints the director of the Ohio EPA or his/her designee to serve as the coordinator of harmful algae management and response.
- Requires the Director of Environmental Protection to consult with specified state and local officials and representatives to develop actions that protect against cyanobacteria in the western basin and public water supplies and that manage wastewater to limit nutrient loading into the western basin.
- Requires the Director to develop and implement protocols and actions regarding monitoring and management of cyanobacteria and other agents that may result in harmful algal production.
Healthy Lake Erie Fund
The fund shall now be used in support of conservation measures in the western basin as determined by the director of ODNR; for funding assistance for soil testing, winter cover crops, edge of field testing, tributary monitoring and animal waste abatement; and for any additional efforts to reduce nutrient runoff as the director may decide. The director must give priority to recommendations that encourage farmers to adopt agricultural production guidelines commonly known as 4R nutrient stewardship
Phosphorous monitoring for publicly owned treatment works
- Requires certain publicly owned treatment work to begin monthly monitoring of total and dissolved phosphorous by December 1, 2016.
- Requires a publicly owned treatment works that is not subject to a specified phosphorous effluent limit on the bill's effective date to complete and submit an optimization study that evaluates its ability to reduce phosphorous to that limit.
Dredged material in Lake Erie and tributaries
- Beginning on July 1, 2020, prohibits deposits of dredged material from harbor or navigation maintenance activities in Ohio’s portion of Lake Erie and direct tributaries of the lake unless authorized by the Director of Ohio EPA.
- Allows the Ohio EPA Director to authorize a deposit of dredged material for confined disposal facilities; beneficial use; beach nourishment; placement in the littoral drift; habitat restoration and projects involving amounts of dredged material of less than 10,000 cubic yards.
- Requires the Ohio EPA Director to endeavor to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on long-term planning for the disposition of dredged materials.
Implementation review
The final version of the legislation requires a review three years after the law’s effective date by the appropriate House and Senate committees, who must assess the results of implementing the new measures and issue a report of their findings and recommendations for revisions of repeal to the Governor.
Transfer of Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program
The law declares that the legislature intends to enact legislation to transfer the Ohio Agricultural Pollution Abatement Program from ODNR to ODA by July 1, 2015.
The bill is now awaiting action by Governor Kasich. The final version of the legislation and accompanying documents are available here.
Tags: algae, algae legislation, fertilizer application, manure application, Lake Erie, western basin
Comments: 0