This is an update from
the news item
dated 12/28/09.
The Florida Department
of Revenue has proposed
changes to the Florida
Administrative Code
(Rules) for conservation
easement exemptions and
conservation use
assessments provided by
the 2009 Legislature.
The proposal creates
Rule 12D-7.020, plus 4
new forms. We,
along with other
interested parties,
participated in a public
hearing in February.
We voiced our concerns
and questions,
identified in paragraphs
3 and 6 of the previous
news article, for the
public record. The
Department is now moving
to complete the public
hearings and adopt the
Rules and forms.
Revenue personnel advise
the comments from the
public hearing will be
considered. At
this time, however, the draft Rules and forms
still do not address any
of the 6 questions and
concerns, subjecting
much of the technical
procedures for the
conservation provisions
to interpretation and
lack of uniformity.
Additionally, the
Department is proposing
a change to Rule
12D-5.004. This
Rule covers one of the 7
factors which a property
appraiser may take into
consideration for
determining whether the
use of land for
agricultural purposes is
bona fide. The
factor (FS
193.461(3)(b)7) states:
“Such other factors as
may from time to time
become applicable.”
The Rule, entitled
“Other Factors that May
Become Applicable to
Classification of
Agricultural Lands,”
expands and itemizes
some of the other
factors. The
2009 Legislature changed language in FS 193.461(3)(b)4,
providing no minimum
acreage could be
required for
agricultural
classification.
This Rule proposal
essentially adds the
same language from the
statute. This Rule
covers the “other
factors that may become
applicable;” and, in our
opinion, the addition is
not necessary and serves
no purpose.
Update on Proposed
Changes to the Value
Adjustment Board (VAB)
Process (05/24/10)
This
is an update from the
news item dated
12/22/09. The
Florida Department of
Revenue completed public
hearings on the VAB
process Rules and forms
proposals. The
changes have been
adopted.
We
participated in two
public hearings and
voiced the concerns
identified in paragraphs
3 and 4 of the 12/22/09
news article.
These concerns are part
of the public record.
The issue in paragraph 4
is of particular
importance. Our
concerns, however, were
not addressed in the
adopted Rules or forms.
