Page 1 Background, proposed changes, rational and implementation. Alberta’s Grazing Lease Framework Grazing Lease Royalties.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Effective Asset Management John Holdsworth & Sue Philpott.
Advertisements

Investment Centers and Transfer Pricing n Top managers of large companies evaluate their divisions as investment centers. The manager of an investment.
Chapter 15: Performance Evaluation and Compensation
Future Directions on Rent Regulation and Laws affecting Tenants Shelter, Housing and Support Division February 27, 2004.
1 Welcome to the International Right of Way Association’s Course 701 Property Management Leasing 701-PT – Revision 8 – INT.
REVENUE MOBILISATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Training Slides for Lower Local Governments.
Costs  The word costs means expenditure. It refers to the money spent on an item or for a specific purpose or cause.
Pasture Rental Arrangements AgLease101.org a product of the North Central Farm Management Extension Committee.
Long-Term Liabilities 10. Management Issues Related to Issuing Long-Term Debt OBJECTIVE 1: Identify the management issues related to long-term debt.
February 18, 2015 Grazing Lease Royalties Alberta’s Grazing Lease Framework Background, Proposed Changes, Rational & Implementation.
Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling: What Does it Mean for Economic Development? Preliminary Findings February 2011 Sean O’Leary Ted Boettner West Virginia Center.
Public Land for the Taking A Disturbing Tale. Outline What is native prairie and what remains? Of what value native prairie? Stewardship of native prairie.
FRST 318 / 537C March 3 rd Lab Midterm Review. Question 1 Governments in North America announce that wood is a preferred building material because it.
Unit 14 The Federal Reserve The Top Five Concepts
2011 Contribution Policy AESO Tariff Applications October 17 th, 2011.
Guidelines for Setting “Proper” Stocking Rate K. Launchbaugh UDSA-ARS.
SROI Report Card: Year Ending July Inner City Renovation: Social Mission Overview SROI Report Card: Year End 2007 Hire majority of ICR employees.
(c) 2002 Contemporary Engineering Economics 1 Chapter 3 Cost Concepts and Behaviors General Cost Terms Classifying Costs for Financial Statements Cost.
SESSION 19A: PRIVATE COMPANY VALUATION Aswath Damodaran 1.
1 Georgian National Energy and Water Supply Regulatory Commission Tariff Regulation Gocha Shonia Department of Methodology and informational provision.
Economics of Riparian Restoration on Western Washington Farms June 29, 2004 American Water Resource Association Olympic Valley, CA Carolyn J. Henri, PhD.
Chapter 14 – Budgeting, Accounting and Financial Management
B121 Chapter 12 Finance. Accounting concepts & principles Financial statements are prepared at the end of a period. The form and content of such financial.
Regulatory Change Measurement (RCM) Calculating Delay Costs These slides available at:
2014 Budget Department Presentations Infrastructure Funding Options.
Capital & Operating Leases ODJFS Office of Fiscal & Monitoring Services Bureau of County Finance & Technical Assistance OJFSDA Conference, June 2009.
Classification of PP&E
Determining an Equitable Crop Share Lease AgLease101.org a product of the North Central Farm Management Extension Committee.
Limited Proceedings Water & Wastewater Reference Manual1.
1 The Lower Athabasca Regional Plan: A Case Study Biol. 595 Sept. 16, 2009.
Environmental Pricing Initiatives Harry Kitchen Department of Economics Trent University Peterborough, Ontario.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 250, Sacramento, CA fax presented to Fort Ord Reuse Authority.
Jeff’s slides. Transportation Kitchener Transportation Master Plan Define and prioritize a transportation network that is supportive of all modes of.
Fixed and Flexible Cash Rental Arrangements AgLease101.org a product of the North Central Farm Management Extension Committee.
Engineering Economic Analysis Canadian Edition
North Dakota Agricultural Land Valuation Model Dwight Aakre/Ron Haugen Farm Management Specialists March 2012.
Revenues Key Definition Revenue: the gross inflow of economic benefits (cash, receivables, other assets) arising from the ordinary operating activities.
Presentation to Harbor Commission Regarding Newport Harbor Mooring Fees and Transferability March 23,
Communication campaign Most common issues identified: analysis per cost category Antonio Requena Fernández FCH JU Financial Officer.
DIVISION OF REVENUE BILL VOTE 16: HIGHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING Presentation to Standing Committee on Appropriations 26 February 2010.
Budgets: Uses in Farm Management
11 Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP) James B. Johnson Emeritus Professor MSU Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics Billings, MT January.
Financial Management Unit – 2 Cost of Capital and Leverages.
Issue 16: Returns to Government Owned Assets J. Steven Landefeld April 25, 2006 SNA Update Session, Geneva, Switzerland Overview of AEG Recommendation.
 2001 Prentice Hall Business Publishing, Accounting Information Systems, 8/E, Bodnar/Hopwood Systems Implementation, Operation, and Control Chapter.
Strengthening the Resilience of Local and Regional Food Systems Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) A community network of members who support one or.
IPART’s review of CityRail’s regulatory framework – stakeholder roundtable 31 July 2008.
California State University, Sacramento Shared Solutions: A Framework for Discussing California Higher Education Finance Nancy Shulock, Director Institute.
Road Impact Fee Update Discussion Item June 21, 2011 Transportation Impact Fee Update Discussion Item June 21, 2011.
Accounting (Basics) - Lecture 3 Property, plant and equipment.
FEBRUARY 22, 2016 FY 2017 County Administrator’s Recommended Budget.
Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association AGM 2016 Alberta Environment and Parks.
Financial & Budget Outlook City Council Strategic Planning Retreat March 19, 2012 Pueblo, Colorado.
ESNA Economic Outlook 2016: Alberta’s Fiscal and Environmental Challenges “It could be worse…..” Mike Percy Ph.D. December 3,
F Designed to give you the knowledge and application of: Section C: Financial Statements C1. Statements of cash flows C2. Tangible non-current.
Statement of Accounts Monitoring & Audit 27 th September 2011.
Is There a Proper Accounting for Indirect Costs?
Wisconsin Council on Forestry Meeting May 18, 2017
Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency
Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
Livestock agreements cash lease and share
10 Measures of Operating Capacity.
Public Land Grazing REM Integrated Rangeland Management
Stevenson 5 Capacity Planning.
Department of Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services
Introduction Last comprehensive review was undertaken in 2012/2013
Building a secure Home Affairs
Investments: Property, Plant, and Equipment and Intangible Assets
Presentation transcript:

Page 1 Background, proposed changes, rational and implementation. Alberta’s Grazing Lease Framework Grazing Lease Royalties

Page 2 Background – Rental Rates 3-zone rental rate system implemented in 1960 Based on distance to livestock markets and outdated understanding of forage quality

Page 3 Background – Rental Rates Rental rates have been determined using the following formula based on the grazing capacity of the land, the average weight gain of cattle on grass, and the average sale price per pound of cattle: Rent per AUM = (300lb. wt. gain/AU/yr) x (average lvstk. $/lb) x (zonal %) 12 months Since 1994, the grazing rental rates for leases, licences and permits in Alberta have been frozen at: Zone A (Southern Alberta) - $2.79/AUM Zone B (Central Alberta) - $2.32/AUM Zone C (Northern Alberta) - $1.39/AUM

Page 4 Background – Assignment Fees Established at the same time as rental rates Designed to capture 50% of the capitalized value of a grazing lease These fees were originally calculated using a formula approach: o {BPC + (BPC*CPC) + Constant + (BPC*LVC)}*0.5 Where: o BCP – Base Period Consideration o CPC – Cattle Price Change o LVC – Land Value Change

Page 5 Background – Assignment Fees In 1994 the assignment fees calculated using the ‘Formula Approach’ were frozen along with rental rates at: o Zone A1 - $48.53/AUM o Zone A2 - $99.80/AUM o Zone B - $48.53/AUM o Zone C - $3.84/AUM In 2003 assignment fees were incorporated into the Public Lands Act at their current fixed rates along with a minimum assignment fee of $100.00: o Zone A1 - $50.00/AUM o Zone A2 - $100.00/AUM o Zone B - $50.00/AUM o Zone C - $5.00/AUM

Page 6 Review and Proposal Development Late 2013 ESRD was approached by the livestock industry to review the grazing lease rental rate and assignment system with the intent to implement a new framework. Stakeholder committee established with representatives from: o Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association o Alberta Beef Producers o Western Stock Growers o Northern Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association Committee worked closely with Environment and Sustainable Resource Development to create a new framework for grazing rental rates and assignment fees on public lands.

Page 7 List of Objectives A new rental rate formula and assignment fee schedule should: Have comparable methodology to other resource sectors Remove existing barriers to succession or the entry of young people into the industry that result from the current rental rate formula or assignment fee schedule Promote and encourage good stewardship Be defendable to economic threats such as countervail Be justifiable - to the Alberta public, other provinces and other resource sectors o Must also be justifiable to grazing lease holders – with rental rates applied fairly across the province based on geographical cost differences Support the maintenance of native grasslands and recognize the interconnections between public and private grasslands Recognize the contributions of good management and private capital to the system Be fair to both leaseholders and government Be revenue neutral over the long term and not specifically intended to increase revenue to the Government nor to decrease rental paid by leaseholders

Page 8 List of Items Committee Supports To use a market-based administrative formula o Similar to lumber stumpage, deciduous timber, OSB, pulp and conventional oil and gas The new royalty structure will be based on a 2 zone system The new royalty structure will be based on the following minimums: o Zone 1 Minimum - $2.30 o Zone 2 Minimum - $1.30 The new royalty structure will start at a 10% incremental variable component as variable income before royalties, taxes and capital return becomes positive. Costs incorporated into formula are appropriate and justified o Using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to inflate costs between survey periods is justified and agreed upon

Page 9 List of Items Committee Supports Use a 2 year rolling average to even out market fluctuations A phase in period of 5 years based on positive increases and 20% increments Part of the proceeds from grazing lease royalties should go to the Range Sustainability Fund o Committee agreed on a 40% contribution, mimicking the Forest Resource Improvement Program managed by Forest Resource Improvement Association of Alberta and funded by a percentage of timber dues paid by industry Assignment fees will be a flat rate throughout the province that reflects the cost of administration There will be a review of the system in 5 years to ensure that industry is comfortable with the new formula and zones Government would have to resurvey costs periodically (every 10 years) to ensure that formula is accurate

Page 10 Proposed Grazing Zones The stakeholder committee and ESRD agreed to a new two zone grazing rental rates structure with a boundary based on the transition to the boreal region of the province - an area that incurs higher capital costs on grazing leases. The two zones would have different minimum rental rates to reflect these differences in capital costs: o Zone 1 - $2.30/AUM o Zone 2 - $1.30/AUM

Page 11 Proposed Rental Rate Formula Formula is: Yearling cattle market value Less Additional input costs Less Grazing lease investment and operating costs Equals Grazing lease rental rate

Page 12 Current Rental RatesProposed Rental Rates  Rental rate revenue has remained ~$2.9M since the formula has been frozen.  Rental rate revenue would, on average, be maintained or increased.  Minimum rental rate revenue would be ~$2.5M when cattle prices are depressed and rental rates are at their minimums  Rental rate formula not aligned with other provincial royalty systems.  Proposed rental rate formula aligned with timber stumpage, deciduous timber, OSB and pulp, conventional oil and gas and oil sands royalties.  Rental rate formula calculated using: o Weight gain of cattle. o Average price of cattle. o Zone percentages (based on grazing zones).  Rental rate formula calculated using: o Market value of cattle. o Input, investment and operating costs of disposition holder (Grazing Lease Cost Study).  Three grazing zones with separate rates and zonal royalties: o Zone A = $2.79/AUM (rent); 10% (royalty) o Zone B = $2.32/AUM (rent); 8 1/3 % (royalty) o Zone C = $1.39/AUM (rent); 5% (royalty)  Originally designed to account for longer distance to market faced by northern producers and to encourage settlement of northern Alberta.  No rational for the different charges per AUM in the grazing zones.  Zonal royalties are fixed for each grazing zone.  Elimination of three grazing zones and replacement with a two zone system that captures minimum rental rate of $2.30/AUM in Zone 1 and $1.30/AUM in Zone 2 with incremental royalties increasing as profits increase: o ↑ cattle prices = ↑ royalties o ↓ cattle prices = ↓ royalties (to $2.30 or $1.30/AUM)  Distance to market no longer applicable, more options available to producers.  Incremental royalties are responsive to market conditions and equal across the Province.  Rental rates have been frozen since 1994 due to concerns over the inequality of the grazing zones.  Lacks transparency (both formula and frozen fees).  Not based on relevant cost structures incurred by leaseholder.  Unresponsive to market conditions (frozen fees).  Proposed rental rate formula applies a two zone formula that would be calculated each year.  Transparent and defendable (industry-driven proposal).  Based on relevant cost structures incurred by leaseholders (cost study).  Responsive to market conditions.

Page 13 Proposed Rental Rates Year of Rental Rate Sept Beef Price of Previous Year Zone 1 (851,933 AUMs) Zone 2 (442,582 AUMs) Total Paid in $ million (1,294,515 AUMs) 2013$1.38 $2.51 $1.51 $ $1.45 $3.28 $2.28 $ $2.10 $6.88 $5.88 $ $2.20 $10.51 $9.51 $ $1.85 $8.22 $7.22 $ $1.65 $6.00 $5.00 $ $1.50 $4.42 $3.42 $ $1.25 $3.37 $2.37 $ $1.10 $2.37 $1.37 $ $1.00 $2.30 $1.30 $2.53

Page 14 Phased Implementation Grazing lease rental rate changes will be phased in over a five year period ( ). During this time, rental rates will be calculated as the base rate plus an annually increasing percentage of the premium beyond the base rate. If, due to market declines, there is a crossover in rental rates during the phased implementation, rental rates will default to the full rates. A crossover occurs when a full rate is less than the prior years partial rate. In the following example, a crossover in rental rates occurs in 2019.

Page 15 Phased Rental Rates* Year of Rental Rate Sept Beef Price of Previous Year Full Premium Phased Premium Zone 1 (851,93 3 AUMs) Zone 2 (442,58 2 AUMs) Total Paid in $ million (1,294,515 AUMs) 2013$1.38 $0.21n/a 2014$1.45 $0.98n/a 2015$2.10 $4.58n/a 2016$2.20 $8.2120% $1.64 $3.94 $2.94 $ $1.85 $5.9240% $2.37 $4.67 $3.67 $ $1.65 $3.7060% $2.22 $4.52 $3.52 $ $1.50 $ % 100% $1.70 $2.12 $4.00 $4.42 $3.00 $3.42 $4.73 $ $1.25 $ % $1.07 $3.37 $2.37 $ $1.10 $ % $0.07 $2.37 $1.37 $ $1.00 $ -100% $0.00 $2.30 $1.30 $2.53 * The phased premium would be eliminated when the current year’s full premium is less than the prior year’s partial or phased premium – in this example that occurs in 2019.

Page 16 Crossover

Page 17

Page 18 Assignment Fees Assignment fees will be a flat rate throughout the province that reflects the cost of administration Not based on a per AUM fee

Page 19 Current Assignment FeesProposed Assignment Fees  Assignment fees were designed to recover 50% of the capitalized value of a disposition resulting from such factors as grazing rights and rental rates.  Proposed assignment fees will cover the administrative costs of registering the assignment.  Assignment fee charged based on carrying capacity of land: o $ /AUM  Administrative cost not based on carrying capacity.  These fees were originally calculated using a formula approach: {BPC + (BPC*CPC) + Constant + (BPC*LVC)}*0.5 BCP – Base Period Consideration CPC – Cattle Price Change LVC – Land Value Considers: o Percentage change in cattle prices. o Percentage change in grazing land values in four zones. o Base period consideration.  Fee that reflects the actual administrative cost of registering the assignment.  Assignment fees calculated using the “Formula Approach” were frozen in 1994: o Zone A1 = $48.53/AUM o Zone A2 = $99.80/AUM o Zone B = $48.53/AUM o Zone C = $3.84/AUM  Elimination of assignment fee zones.  In 2003, assignment fees for “Arms-Length Transfers” incorporated into Public Lands Act at the following fixed rates: o Zone A1 = $50/AUM o Zone A2 = $100/AUM o Zone B = $50/AUM o Zone C = $5/AUM  Five other assignment types were established in 2003 under the Act with a flat $100 assignment fee charge.  Elimination of assignment fee zones and incorporation of assignment fees into the Public Lands Administration Regulation  Elimination of different categories of assignments.  Assignment fees are not transparent: o Based on outdated and cumbersome “Formula Approach”. o Not consistent across province o Dependent on a variety of transfer types. o Not reflective of the cost of assigning the disposition.  Assignment fees would be transparent: o Not based on a cumbersome formula. o Applied consistently across the province. o Not differentiated by transfer types. o Based on administrative costs to register the assignment.

Page 20 Range Sustainability Fund Range Sustainability Fund contributions would be 40% of the rental royalties and would apply to minimum rents as well as any increased rental rates. The fund would be used for research and extension opportunities that help to inform Albertans about the benefits of ranching, such as environmental stewardship. Projects that could be funded by the program include: o Pasture health assessment tool development o Rangeland and riparian monitoring and management o Rangeland stewardship and adaptation o Wildlife, livestock and rangeland interactions, livestock producer education and extension o Recreation and rangeland interaction o Industry and resource use integration o Producer training/awareness o Range health research – reclamation/restoration o Wolf predation and cattle loss studies o Grazing and timber integration The department would use the fund to partner with groups such as: Cows and Fish, Rocky Mountain Forest Range Association, Alberta Beef Producers, Alberta Grazing Leaseholders Association, Western Stockgrowers, Alberta Native Plant Council, Southwest Alberta Sustainable Community Initiative, etc.

Page 21 QUESTIONS Market Based Rents for Grazing Leases