Boots on the ground and in the Capitol: A conversation with NDFB lobbyist Rachel Grosz

In this episode of Straight Talk with NDFB, host Emmery Mehlhoff visits with NDFB lobbyist Rachel Grosz. Rachel is a rancher from Mott, and a homeschooling mom to 3 kids. She previously lobbied for NDFB in the 2017 session and has been an advocate for agriculture policy on the state and federal level. 

We talk about some of the bills relating to property tax, agriculture chemicals, livestock initiatives and more. Join us for this episode. 

_____

Don’t miss NDFB’s legislative review by subscribing to Legislative Front.

Contact Government Affairs Liaison Rachel Grosz at rachel@ndfb.org or Pete Hanebutt, Director of Public Policy at pete@ndfb.org. 

If you have any questions about Straight Talk with NDFB, contact us at emmery@ndfb.org

Transcript

[Straight Talk theme]

[00:12] Emmery: Welcome to Straight Talk with NDFB. I am your host, Emmery Mehlhoff. In today's episode, I visit with North Dakota Farm Bureau lobbyist Rachel Grosz, who dives into some of the issues on property tax, agriculture chemicals and some of the other issues that we face during this legislative session. Rachel is a rancher, a homeschooling mom to three children and an agriculture policy advocate. Join us for this episode.

[Straight Talk stinger]

[00:43] Emmery: I'm visiting with Rachel Gross. She has been the North Dakota Farm Bureau lobbyist for this 2025 session. Rachel, thanks for joining me today.

[00:52] Rachel Grosz: Thanks for having me, Emmery.

[00:53] Emmery: Rachel, can you introduce yourself to our listeners, tell us a little bit about who you are, what you do and how you wound up lobbying for North Dakota Farm Bureau this session.

[01:06] Rachel Grosz: I actually lobbied several sessions ago in 2017 alongside Pete and had a great experience then and just came back this, this session. Prior to that I had been staying at home with my kids, staying at home doing the ranch wife thing for the last several years. And you know, my, my tie to Farm Bureau goes back even before that first session I lobbied. I was a field rep in the southwest corner of the state, which is where I also live. And you know, it's just a wonderful organization. I've been so fortunate to be a part of Farm Bureau and I've loved getting to dive into the policy this last session as well because it's something, you know, that I'm, that I'm personally tied to. I personally feel a lot of these issues and I'm passionate about them. And so it's been great to be involved again and come back and work with Farm Bureau again.

[02:04] Emmery: So Rachel, I believe the session gaveled out at 4 a.m. did you stay up for the, for the end of it?

[02:12] Rachel Grosz: Yes, I did. I had to experience the full "sine die" effect, I suppose. And to be quite honest, there were lots of things still hanging in the balance in the final hours of the legislative session. I mean, the legislators have 80 days and then they have a few days they'd like to reserve in case they'll need them later on. And so the days don't start over until 8 a.m., so technically they can go all night into the next morning. And that they did. I kept joking, this is a little rude, but I kept joking. I was like, I'm not a 70-year-old man and I'm very tired and having trouble, having trouble functioning. So I don't know how everyone else is doing it, but I hope people will excuse that. But I just, it was just so funny and, and I thought, wow, people are doing a really great job of speaking and still being articulate at 3:30 or 4 a.m. so good for them. They all worked very hard that day.

[03:10] Emmery: What issues kept them up that late? Was it property tax or was it more details of other budgets or why were they still hammering?

[03:19] Rachel Grosz: Property tax was a little bit earlier. To be totally honest, it is absolutely a blur. I felt like I had no concept of time that day because I didn't leave the Capitol. And I... Some of the things that were happening later were there were a few budgets and there were also rare earth minerals was later on. And that was another more contentious thing. And certainly, I think the campaign finance transparency bill and the discussion around that. So there were, there were quite a few things that sort of seemed to make progress or seemed like they would be fairly innocuous topics that might pass through or, you know, get voted on rather quickly, and they would be sent back to conference or just have a lot of floor discussion. Have, have issues come up.

[04:09] Emmery: Property tax. Tell us a little bit about that. That has been a continuous theme throughout this session with a new administration and with Governor Armstrong making the announcement during his State of the State address that we would see some sort of property tax reform and obviously the contention and the negotiations around that between how can we best see property tax reform and benefit the state as a whole and different ideas. Can you tell us about how that all played out in the end?

[04:41] Rachel Grosz: First of all, I think our, our organization, Farm Bureau, has had a good relationship with Governor Armstrong thus far and of course, in his previous roles. So we're excited to, to work with him and to work with his team. And I, I think for him, this was a huge issue that, you know, there was really no getting around it. He had this as an initiative and he was able to accomplish that quite effectively. But, you know, I think when you come in and you've got a new governor and a new dynamic, there's a lot of things that are up in the air. And of course, many of the legislators know Governor Armstrong as a former colleague. But there was a lot of buzz around property tax, as you said, and there was a lot of buzz around what is, what is the governor's plan, what is the governor's initiative here, and how can we get the best, the best outcome for North Dakotans. 
And I think ultimately we saw 1176, which was Representative Mike Nathe's bill. It very closely aligned with Governor Armstrong's goal. So ultimately we see $1,600 credit for all homeowners. And there was a lot of discussion, you know, at the end, especially in the, in the conference committees for this bill, we saw very, very short... they would gavel in, you know, and have maybe seven minute discussion. Things were really up in the air, as I said, until the very end, until the final day. Even though these bills were introduced quite early on in session and had been talked about, I think there were somewhere, there were somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe 60 bills relating to property tax that were first introduced. And then we ended up with kind of a final four, three on the House side and one on the Senate side. 

Two of the main property tax bills, which were closely aligned with NDFB policy, actually sort of died by default. There's some challenges associated, I think, with the bill that we are seeing. But I think we can be grateful for the conversation around property tax. I think we can be grateful for the initiative. Unfortunately, the property tax bill that was signed does exclude our industry, does exclude ag and commercial property for that matter. And I think that we might see some difficulty moving forward. There are a lot of questions around the gap funding, how schools will be funded. Excuse me. And I think we're having a conversation now about relief rather than reform. And for our policy and our position, you know, this property tax package probably isn't as closely aligned to our policy position as some of the other bills that were proposed. But I think it's an important conversation to have. 

And regardless, we know that property taxes are difficult. You're never going to make everyone happy. You're never going to appease everyone. And I think that there's, certainly we have to take a step back and look at that and look at the fact that there are a lot of factors at play. Would also commend the sponsors of some of these bills that were really a great conversation and a great step forward, I think, in those, those reform discussions. So Speaker Weisz's bill as well as Representative Lauser's bill were, were really good conversation pieces as well. And I think that the way the conference committee talked, even though it wasn't always completely amicable, I think they were by the end, but there was certainly a lot of mutual respect. But I think that Chair Craig Hedland and his commanding of that conference committee on the final bill was certainly trying to get the best outcome for his constituents and for North Dakota. And so I appreciate all the work that went into it, but it was definitely... I felt exhausted and I wasn't making the decisions. So I will say that I think it was definitely a difficult and contentious time.

[08:56] Emmery: Was there some sort of cap passed with that, with that 1176?

[09:00] Rachel Grosz: Yes, absolutely. So as I said, there's a $1,600 credit for homeowners, then there is a 3% cap. So those local municipalities, those local schools are going to be capped at 3% on the mills that they're able to levy. And so there will be some, as I alluded to earlier, there'll be some challenges I think associated with sort of this plan moving forward. They did include provisions for gap funding to the tune of $30 million. And essentially school districts will then just have to apply via DPI for any additional funding if they aren't able to meet the needs of, of their budget.

[09:48] Emmery: So what we're really looking at is we're looking at some relief to homeowners out there. We're looking at a similar situation that South Dakota has in limiting how much local governments can increase the taxes. So that 3% cap, and then kind of put some of the schools in a little bit of a questionable position. But there's some provision for them to apply for Department of Instruction extra funding if they wind up in trouble. Is that is. Does that sum it up pretty well?

[10:19] Rachel Grosz: Yeah, I think so. I think that there's just a lot of unknowns around that funding. And really until the end of the process, a lot of that wasn't fleshed out with how this might impact school districts. And then that was finally brought up in the conversations the conferees had. And they brought in DPI and they crunched the numbers and they looked at that. And so I think that's where a lot of the concern comes in. And again, as you said, homeowners are getting a credit. And so this is, this isn't really unfortunately meaningful relief or reform for those of us in the ag sector, for landowners or commercial property for that matter. And so I think there's still a question of the inequity that exists within our property tax structure.

[11:09] Emmery: So we saw one, one of the legs of the three-legged stool of property taxpayers see some substantial relief. Do you think that caps on government taxation increase is any substantial type of reform or is it more just like a feel good piece?

[11:26] Rachel Grosz: You know, I, I don't know. I think it's an interesting conversation. I think if we look at perhaps 1176, the bill that we're referencing, that passed in comparison to maybe Scott Lauser's bill and we talk about a buy-down discussion within his bill he had proposed 60 mill buy-down. So instead of just giving taxpayers, giving homeowners rather property taxpayers, a check for however much money, in this case, $1,600. But you know, instead of just giving them some funds, his plan was sort of to kind of tackle this more at the root and to reduce the actual responsibility for those taxpayers. And so I think, I think a conversation around buy-downs and state initiative in terms of what the per pupil payment is and looking at how much the state is required to pay or how much the state is going to be responsible for versus the local taxpayer. And when we look at rural communities where we have a lot of ag land and we don't have as many residential or commercial classes of property, we see that tax burden in a more rural county might be 70 to 80% of that local tax budget. So I think. Sorry, I've gotten, I've gotten way off track here.(laughs)

[13:02] Emmery: I think the interesting thought here is, um, looking at, like you said, a conversation was started around property tax reform, which is farther than has happened. I think, you know, a couple sessions ago, if anybody had even whispered some sort of a cap on taxes, there wasn't a lot of interest in that. And so this really did push the property tax conversation in a substantial direction. And so I think it'll be interesting just to see how that unfolds. 

And then also for the agriculture community, for North Dakota Farm Bureau members, I think it puts them in a position of really responsibility to look at what property tax reform and relief should look like. I mean, we've had this conversation on the delegate floor before, but what does that, what does that look like? And obviously the stance in the, in the past has been a total abolishment of property tax. But if the public isn't in agreement of that, then there will be continue to be some sort of property tax levied. And so then the question is, what if, if there is property tax levied, what should that look like and what should that look like for the agriculture community? 

And the ag community is already looking at their farm homes being tax exempt. But that really is just part of the picture of living out on the farm where you're already paying 40, 50, 60, $70,000 in property tax on your farm. But really what does, what does property tax relief look like for the agriculture community and reform? And so I really think that conversation will continue. And I'm excited as counties have their annual meetings and have their policy discussions. And I really encourage our members out there to really dig in to this question and say, okay, if we're going to have property tax, what should that property tax look like and how should that affect us? And so I'm excited to see the conversation that comes from this and excited to see what happens on the state level.

[15:07] Rachel Grosz: I think you make a great point about our members really examining what, what it is that they're looking for, what it is that we need in ag and as landowners. And I think also truly examining, you mentioned the farm home exemption. How many of our members and how many farmers and ranchers throughout the state utilize that? I know that many people do, but many people do not. And I think that demographic of folks who benefit from that exemption is most likely dwindling because a lot of people are driving a substantial part of their income off the farm. Perhaps one of the spouses works in town or something like that. 

And so I think that there's a conversation to be had around the farm home exemption because unfortunately, the misconception out there among many legislators, among the public is really that farmers don't pay taxes, that farmers get a break or pay fewer taxes than they should. And in reality, we know we're paying to the center of the road. So whatever exemption we get is probably just offsetting unproductive land that we aren't able to farm or put cows on or whatever. And we're still paying on that because we technically own it. And so we're still paying for that. And I think, you know, ultimately what we're seeing to your point is a wonderful discussion around property tax. And I think what we ended up with is the most palatable and probably the most politically palatable version for voters, and three out of four North Dakotans are going to benefit and perhaps even in maybe some communities are going to have their complete tax, property tax burden completely alleviated by this legislation. 

And unfortunately, this just isn't economically profitable for those of us in ag. And I don't think that, certainly not as Farm Bureau members, and I don't think most farmers and ranchers throughout our state would say that we're looking for any type of handout. And I think that that's sort of the messaging that has been articulated throughout the years. Just that, oh, you're, you're being, you're being greedy, you're wanting something that doesn't belong to you or you're, you're not wanting to pay for something that you should. And I think we need to change the narrative and change our discussion around that because ultimately I think we have to work on eliminating the value based tax structure. But we have to look at it as, let's do what is most equitable, most fair, and let's focus on how we can alleviate some of the inequality along these different classes of property. 

As I said earlier, we're just, we're bearing a large burden. And so I think for us in ag and for our members, it's more about a conversation of let's have something more fair, more evenly distributed rather than giving the burden to agriculture. And I think that that tax burden is, is always going to shift to someone, but if it can be spread out more fairly, I think that that would be a great step in, in the minds of, you know, farmers and ranchers across our state.

[18:33] Emmery: Yeah, you bring up an interesting mental shift, I think, which is when you look at property tax relief as, okay, let's, we've collected these taxes, let's give a credit or a kickback to the payers of that tax, you're probably always going to have some form of inequity there because of all the things that you just mentioned. Unless you completely eliminate it, you're always going to have some form of, of inequity where somebody is paying more than they probably ought to in a, in a completely fair system. But you bring up an interesting, interesting shift which is possibly the idea of just reducing the tax burden as a whole. We mentioned the buy down option. When you reduce the total bill, then that property tax that is levied is less for everyone. And so that is an interesting discussion in the terms of fairness. And so I'm curious to see what our members think and the discussion that evolves from here. 

Tell me a little bit more about some of the issues that you guys covered during the session. It was, I think there were a lot of successes for agriculture. Can you tell me about some of the biggest, I guess the biggest victories that agriculture saw or that we stopped possibly as. Can you go into some of those issues?

[19:57] Rachel Grosz: Absolutely. I think a lot of the time, Pete and I, and yourself as well, but Pete and I were looking at things as we're playing defense and there are plenty of victories as well and plenty of things that I think we were offensive in our strategy and exciting things. 

But there are always going to be a number of bills that are introduced that are just bad policy, don't align with our policy and our values as NDFB. And I think when you have something like 1100 bills, I believe, initially introduced, you're going to have some things that are just not good ideas. One of those things that comes to mind for us is just the concept of annual sessions. I think as our dynamics change within the North Dakota legislature and we now have term limits coming into the picture, I think annual sessions seemed to be a natural progression. North Dakota is one of the, the few states that still has an every other year structure. And for us to continue on the biennium path is a NDFB policy. So that just made sense for us. 

But when Pete stood up to testify, at least on the Senate side, I believe he was the only opposition. So we really didn't think that that was going to be a victory for our organization and for, for North Dakota. But I think ultimately that's going to be something that's going to limit government, going to limit spending, and is going to be an overall positive for our state. So we're proud of that. 

And then I think also some exciting things are some of the changes that were made within animal agriculture and livestock. I want to commend Senator Paul Thomas because I think he was such a champion for innovation and being, being progressive in livestock and in developing that within our state. And so he had several bills which were also work done by our organization and other ag groups in the interim. Pete worked a lot on, I believe, Senate Bill 2174, which was a bill to come alongside and to help townships have more tools in terms of zoning and deciding where a livestock facility would be located. So if you're going to have a feedlot, of course there's going to be a concern about odor. And so this bill essentially just added a tool so that there's technology, that there is a calculation that could be employed to better determine the actual impact of an animal ag facility. And so I think that is a really, a really exciting step. And I know also, just, you know, very candidly, our governor, our governor said to us, like, I'm pro animal ag, you work on it, I'll sign it. And so I think that that's really exciting that we have folks like Senator Thomas, we have our governor ready to champion animal agriculture in our state and bring more in and invest in that. And so I think that those types of efforts were huge victories throughout the session. 

And I know as well, along those lines, you know, there's a lot of talk about the dairy industry, or lack thereof now within our state, of course, we formerly had a robust dairy sector and we no longer do, unfortunately. And so Senator Thomas also had a bill which would provide funding through the Bank of North Dakota, a line of credit for value added milk processing facilities. So essentially just incentivizing, you know, a milk processing facility, a creamery to come to our state and then hopefully in turn also incentivizing investment in the dairy sector as well. So I think that there are a lot of exciting things along those lines. 
And I don't think we talk about enough all of the friends we have in the legislature. There are so many wonderful legislators, I say, who are first of all in ag. There are many who are in production ag, farming, ranching, but also ag adjacent, I would say. Obviously, we live in a rural state. People everybody knows a farmer probably, but I think we have a lot of really great people who are very thoughtful, who just get it. They get farming and ranching. They get the need for the backbone of our state's economy. And we can have plenty of discussions about energy and oil and coal and natural gas, and those things are wonderful as well, as well as emerging industries within our state. But ag is still going to be a huge player in our state's economy, and not only from a sentimental or nostalgic cultural perspective. We are also just very innovative in ag. And I think that when we see efforts like the animal ag efforts, it's really exciting. It's an exciting place to be and to have that within our industry. So I think we have a lot of positives in terms of the climate of the legislators themselves and their attitude toward agriculture.

[25:21] Emmery: I think the number of farmers and ranchers who serve in the legislature is dwindling, and that's always a concern. But it is exciting when you hear how good of relationships we have with the legislators. And obviously, there are some issues that become difficult to explain sometimes if you're not in agriculture, for example, why the western North Dakota needs water access and things like that, that was a bill that came up as far as digging wells in reclaimed mines out west and state land. But there's some practical misunderstandings that can occur. But in general, I think the overall tone of the legislature and our friends is very positive to agriculture and to our heritage. And so would you agree with that, or do you think I'm sugarcoating things?

[26:18] Rachel Grosz: No, I. I think you're absolutely correct, Emmery. I think there's a positive connotation, and I do think, of course, there are always going to be differences. We know that because we might have policy differences with other folks in ag, and that's okay. We have differences. But I think overall there is an attitude that we want to support this industry and we want to continue to see people thrive within the ag industry. 

Another example would be House Bill 1318, which was kind of contentious. And nationally, some of the same language was seen in various states. And I find it really exciting that our state was the first to have this bill signed. 1318 affirms the EPA label is sufficient for human health in terms of ag chemicals. So if you purchase Roundup or any other application, those of us in ag, we know if we're going to spray, we have to follow the label. The label is the law. So basically, it's just stating that the EPA has done the research to create a safety warning and a label that is going to be sufficient for protecting human health. So this is really important, actually, for those of us in ag because it allows us to continue to have access to any chemical application that we need. 

And also, it was. It was interesting because initially it was pretty uncontentious. And then there started to be some, you know, chitter chatter out in the countryside. And I think people started to sort of get cold feet. Legislators started to get cold feet about this. And it really took a lot of research, I think, and a lot of study. And I appreciate that they did their due diligence, because some of the people, just to circle back to our previous comment about folks that are involved in ag, I mean, some of these people, this is their livelihood. They use these chemicals, they understand, and some of them sell these chemicals as well. And I think for those who are in ag business and who are farmers themselves, to look at this really critically and just want to make sure that they're doing the right thing and want to understand all the facets of this bill. And it was very encouraging for me to see that, because although we wanted it to pass and we wanted to continue to have that access, I think it's great that they were able to flesh out all of the aspects of the bill and ensure that they were doing the right thing. And ultimately they did, and it passed, and the governor signed it. And we were the first state to have this bill go through. 

I know our neighbors to the west in Montana, unfortunately weren't able to get this bill across the finish line. I think it failed by one vote. So they just, you know, I think we're looking at us like, how did you do that? What happened? And not that, not that we can take exclusive credit for it, but it's an exciting thing to. To get. To have that, you know, make it across the finish lines. 

The other interesting aspect of this bill is 1318 will allow us to continue to rely on European inputs rather than getting Chinese inputs. And I think there was a bigger discussion throughout session, and overall, there were a lot of bills dealing with China and dealing with our energy independence, our mineral independence. So many different facets, things from drones, the drones that we have and their potential to transmit information back to China, all the way down to vapes and the vape products that are coming from China. And obviously a lot of these products are not safe. They're not held to the same standard as domestically produced or other inputs that are produced in the West. And so, so I think that that was a really interesting conversation about our domestic security and our independence in terms of our infrastructure, our technology and all of the things that we have and specifically many of the things we produce in our state that allow us to maintain security and maintain a separation from China. And certainly interesting with the efforts that our president has made as well. And so I think in tandem with that, the legislature certainly had many initiatives and forward thinking in regard to our security and in regard to China specifically.

[31:15] Emmery: Bringing up our national security and that broader discussion that was happening. Just begin to touch on the Mount Everest of bills that we could talk about, including, oh, I'll just name a few here, the sale of raw milk products, allowing whole milk to be given in schools, and labeling cell cultured protein, the fake meat conversation, renewable energy, energy transmission, drainage law updates, a big broad discussion on, on rare earth minerals and property rights, conversations around veterinary medicine, deer baiting, more water issues. Just so many different things that we could go into. I just really encourage our listeners to keep a lookout for our legislative session summary coming out very soon to our Legislative Front subscribers as well, and it will also be available on our website, ndfb.org in our policy section. Rachel has been working furiously on that. And so I'm really excited to see the end summary of all of the things. And so I guess, Rachel, the last word is for you working hard out there. Is there any last things that you want to touch on or, or just mention for our purposes today?

[32:39] Rachel Grosz: Yeah, I would just encourage our members to continue to think of things that are important to you, things that are happening in your own operation, in your own township and neighborhood, so to speak, and your area and what your goals are for, for yourself, for your operation, for the next generation. If you have kids coming up, who's going to take over the family farm and ranch. And as you do that and as you have this look of what is, what's going on around you, have a conversation and have a really clear picture about how we can turn that into policy. And I would just continue to encourage our members to develop robust policy around ag and natural resources and energy and private property rights, all of these things that are affecting us because ultimately whatever we get from our, our counties, from our district and whatever we come up with for our policy is going to eventually shape something in the legislative process because that policy book is the playbook that Pete and I are going off of to decide the direction we want to take if we want to support or oppose a piece of legislation. And so I would just encourage everyone to think about how things are impacting you in your personal lives and what things you feel need to be changed.

[34:08] Emmery: Thank you, Rachel Grosz, for joining me today and thank you for representing North Dakota Farm Bureau during the 2025 legislative session.

[34:16] Rachel Grosz: Thank you so much, Emmery. It was great to chat with you and to get to talk to all our listeners. And thanks for working with me and helping me so much.

[Straight Talk stinger]

[34:30] Emmery: You've been listening to straight talk with NDFB. Thanks for following along as we covered the 2025 legislative session. Be on the lookout for our legislative summary as we go into the details on issues that matter to agriculture. Thanks for listening.

[Straight Talk theme]