A very large number of legislative proposals have been filed at roughly the halfway point for the 2010 regular legislative session.  We will first cover proposals which have the most significant direct and specific impact on forestry and agricultural property taxation.  Other significant taxation-related proposals affecting all property owners, including agriculture and forestry, will follow; however, the list is not comprehensive. 

 

SB 1100 requires denial of Greenbelt Agricultural Classification for hiring unauthorized workers.  Denials are for 2, 5, or 10 years, according to the number of unauthorized employees.  It also provides other penalties, and appears to require the County Property Appraiser to determine the authorized or unauthorized status of an agricultural operation’s employees.

 

The bill has no movement as of 3/29.  Similar legislation was previously proposed.

 

SB 2074 is the “Agricultural Land Acknowledgement Act” prohibiting certain restrictions on farm operations.  It prohibits charging storm water management fees to certain agricultural operations.  Additionally, the proposal requires certain developers to sign an acknowledgement of adjacent agricultural property.  Further, it exempts farm fencing from the Fla. Building Code, revises the definition of Non-Residential Farm Buildings, and adds to previous language (permits) exempting Non-Residential Farm Buildings and farm fences from county/city codes and fees.  The proposal also contains an expansion of the list of agricultural waste materials which may be burned on the farm.

 

The bill was moving through the legislative process as of 3/29.  Similar legislation was previously proposed.

 

SB 2182 revises FS 193.461, the Greenbelt Agricultural Classification statute.  The background on this proposal is a denial of Greenbelt on corporately-owned timberlands when the owner placed the land in a corporate subsidiary for apparent future development, although the actual use of the property for commercial forestry did not change.  The denial was upheld by an appeals court.  The proposal adds another section under FS 193.461(3)(b) providing offering property for sale does not constitute a primary use of land and may not be used as the basis for denying Greenbelt if the agricultural use continues while the property is being offered for sale.  Based on our experience, we have no objection to this part of the proposal; however, the language would have been better located/placed after FS 193.461(3)(d) and with or before (3)(e), which already covers other restrictions on denial of Greenbelt. 

 

The proposal also contains some grammatical editing or “wordsmithing” to the current language, including the “size” factor. The grammatical changes appear inconsequential. 

 

The original proposal has been amended; a new section has been added under FS 193.461(6)(c).  FS 193.461(6)(c)3 requires improvements, structures, or equipment used as a conservation practice or to implement BMPs to be assessed by the same methodology as under (6)(c)1.  Unfortunately, the addition exacerbates an existing appraisal problem in this section of the statute.  (6)(c)2 also requires poultry litter containment structures and dairy farm waste containment structures to be assessed by the same methodology as under (6)(c)1.  The problem is with the language in (6)(c)1.  Section (6)(c)1 was implemented several years ago and contains assessment methodology clearly not written by an appraiser.  As the Appraiser Administrator for agricultural property taxation with the Department of Revenue, we saw numerous interpretations of the language and the methodology applied in an effort to comply with the vague language.  Specifically, the language states:  “For purposes of the income methodology approach to assessment of property used for agricultural purposes, irrigation systems, …shall be considered a part of the average yields per acre and shall have no separately assessable contributory value.”  Ask 10 appraisers what that means and you will get a variety of responses.  We hope someone will pick up the ball and change a few words to clarify the meaning.  We suggest removing “a part of the average yields per acre” and replacing with “an integral part of the agricultural operation.”  Or, another option is to treat the specified structures, equipment, and improvements in the same manner as pollution control devices and appraise them at salvage value or a very low specified maximum nominal value, essentially per the methodology in FS 193.621.

 

The bill was moving through the legislative process as of 3/29.

 

SB 1378 appears to be follow up from the 2008 Conservation Constitutional amendment provisions for classified use assessment or tax exemption of properties in (perpetual) conservation easements and conservation use property covered under non-perpetual agreements or covenants.  The proposal revises the language in FS 193.501 by incorporating land used for “conservation” to the existing language in the outdoor park and recreational land use category for assessments of covenanted land or land with a development rights conveyance.  The 10-year minimum term remains.  The proposal requires the conveyance or covenant to be recorded; essentially, it requires a current use assessment for non-perpetual covenanted conservation use properties.

 

The language expands the definition of “covenant” and provides for development of a covenant form.  It also defines conservation purposes and itemizes covenant requirements (including allowable uses).

 

One issue will be appraisal methodology; i.e., how to appraise the land, the same as the (2009 statutory change) existing issue with appraisal of the perpetual easements with allowable agricultural uses.

 

The proposal does not appear to provide for a lower assessment than Greenbelt, but may allow a value similar to Greenbelt on properties or lands which have no agricultural or forestry activity.  No provisions for a property tax exemption are included.

 

The bill has no movement as of 3/29.  If it moves, we expect language to change significantly.

 

SB 2348 establishes new regulations and requirements for pile burning and certified pile burners.  The bill has no movement as of 3/29.

 

SB 1998 provides for certain special assessments, if millage rates are reduced accordingly.  We have concerns that the provisions of this bill could be inappropriately applied, especially to non-local landowners/investors.  The bill had made some movement through the legislative process as of 3/29.

 

SB 1408 and 346 are follow up from the 2008 Working Waterfronts Constitutional amendment provisions for classified use assessment of certain waterfront properties.  The proposals provide for assessment by the income approach.  Also, a new application is required if a property lessee changes.  Further, provisions are included for application, tax recapture, and penalties.

 

SB 338 provides a taxpayer the right to be provided the County Property Appraiser’s assessment supporting documentation 14 days prior to a VAB hearing, without requesting it.

 

SB 1406 re-establishes the intangible personal property tax.  The bill has no movement as of 3/29.

 

Other proposals include Constitutional amendments for:  limitations on increases of homestead assessments; homestead inheritance; new homestead owners; homestead assessment methodology; and, limitations on assessment increases of non-residential homestead property.