No doubt due to the hard work of Pamela Faerber to make state legislators aware of zoning issues with agricultural land, the State Senate (SB 405) and House (HB 1125) both have introduced bills to address the situation.
The summary of SB 405 reads:
Assessment of agricultural land. Provides that the soil productivity factors used for the March 1, 2011, assessment of agricultural land must be used for assessment dates occurring after March 1, 2014, unless and until new soil productivity factors are approved in a statute enacted by the general assembly. Specifies the manner in which the department of local government finance (DLGF) shall adopt rules to provide a method for determining the true tax value of agricultural land. Provides that the method in effect for the 2014 assessment date must be used until superseded by a method provided in rules adopted by the DLGF. Provides that the rules do not apply to a particular assessment date unless the rules take effect at least 120 days before that assessment date. Provides that an assessing official may not reclassify a taxpayer’s parcel of agricultural land as excess residential land unless the assessing official provides the taxpayer with written notice of the change in classification at least one hundred eighty (180) days before the assessment date. Requires the property tax assessment board of appeals to conduct a hearing on the proposed reclassification upon the request of the taxpayer. Provides that if the assessing official proves by a preponderance of the evidence that: (1) the taxpayer’s land has been subdivided into lots; or (2) the taxpayer’s use of the parcel has changed; so that the parcel is not eligible for assessment as agricultural land, the property tax assessment board of appeals shall approve the reclassification of the taxpayer’s parcel. Provides that for purposes of the 2015 assessment date, the state wide agricultural land base rate value per acre used to determine the valueof agricultural land is $2,050.
The portion in red would apply to land currently zoned “agricultural” that the state is attempting to reclassify as “excess residential” even when the use of the land has not changed for generations.
The summary of HB 1125 reads:
Land classification for tax purposes. Specifies the criteria for classifying land as agricultural land for property tax assessment purposes. Provides that certain undeveloped lands must be assessed as agricultural land regardless of the motives of the owner at the time the owner acquired the land, the zoning designation of the land, or whether the owner uses the land for growing crops or raising livestock or is otherwise engaged in the business of farming. Requires assessing officials to review for compliance with the new criteria the assessments of lands that had been classified as excess residential property for the 2005 through 2015 assessment dates and to reclassify as agricultural land as necessary for the 2016 assessment date. Authorizes refunds for excessive tax payments attributable to the reclassification of land during that period. Provides that the limitations on contracts for the discovery of undervalued or omitted property apply to a contract concerning the reclassification of parcels, including the prohibition on contracts paid on a percentage basis.
Again, the portion in red addresses the reclassification of “agricultural” property to “excess residential”.
While I haven’t read either of these bills in their entirety, from the summary of each it appears that they both address the situation of concern to several of us in the Hunt Club and Traders Point areas, namely: the seemingly baseless reclassification of zoning status from “agricultural” to “excess residential” with the concomitant huge increase in property tax burden.
If you want to voice your support for either or both of these bills, please contact your state representatives and let them know. You can find a list of your state representatives here.
