County board meets many greenbelt protests with approval
The approvals came one after another Tuesday, each time sending relieved landowners from the county hearing room.
There was the owner of 19 acres of brome grass who has plans for a Christmas tree operation.
The landowner who grows trees to burn in his wood stove to heat his home.
In total, 25 of 29 pieces of land scrutinized by the County Board, sitting as the Board of Equalization, were deemed to have enough agricultural activity to continue to warrant greenbelt designation — and the tax breaks that go along with it.
Of those, the County Assessor’s Office had recommended 14 of the cases retain the designation.
The cases weren’t without diversity, ranging from land used for row crops and cattle. There was land used to raise llamas that went to market and their wool to eBay bidders. There was land recognized by the federal government as a bona fide ag operation, and still others that didn’t carry such a distinction.
Among the denials: a landowner who fought to hold onto the designation with the claim his two children were enrolled in vocational agriculture courses and FFA; and other operations that failed to show a profit.
All have the option of appealing the decision to the state, or even reapplying for the designation in future years.
It’s only the beginning of the workload for board members, who have more than 100 cases scheduled for public hearing within the next week, with the number of protests growing by the day.
Late last month, more than 970 notices went out to landowners informing them they stood to lose the designation. The notices were prompted by a new state law that more narrowly defines what kind of land qualifies as greenbelt, though leaving the interpretations of the law to county assessors.
Greenbelt land is taxed on its agricultural use rather than its higher market value.
The County Clerk’s Office has received 160 protest filings, Deputy County Clerk John Glynn told the board. The deadline to file a protest is Monday. Information about how to file a protest is posted on the county’s Web site. Those who received a notice and don’t protest will automatically lose the designation.
U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson came under fire last year for land he owns in Sarpy County, prompting a review of its greenbelt designation. The land, which Nelson reportedly used for raising wild turkeys, eventually lost its status.
Though the protests overwhelmingly won approval, that’s not to say the decisions came easily, with the debate becoming especially heated during a discussion about a landowner who rents most of his land out for farming and lives on an adjoining acre.
Board member Ray Stevens, who frequently cast votes against letting protesting landowners retain the designation, argued he based his judgments on the primary use of the land, and not the acres involved.
“I think there’s some confusion about that,” he said.
Stevens doesn’t have an understanding of “agricultural,” board member and farmer Larry Hudkins argued, adding that if most of the ground is used for agricultural purposes, that should carry weight.
The argument made for some tense moments as the two butted heads on their interpretations.
After Hudkins snickered and shook his head in disagreement as Stevens made his points, Chairman Bob Workman interjected with a reminder that Stevens had the floor.
The frustrations stretched beyond board members. Rob Ogden, chief field deputy for the assessor’s office who sat in on Tuesday’s meeting, said he was disappointed in the board’s decisions.
“I think the board in general is misinterpreting what the statute is,” Ogden said, adding it’s the board’s right to make any decision it wishes.
During the hearings, Ogden on more than one occasion reminded the board to focus its decisions on the primary use of the land, each time appearing visibly frustrated.
“I think you could say if Ben Nelson’s property was in Lancaster County, he would qualify for growing turkeys,” Ogden said.
Reach Jean Ortiz at 473-7107 or jortiz@journalstar.com.
There was the owner of 19 acres of brome grass who has plans for a Christmas tree operation.
The landowner who grows trees to burn in his wood stove to heat his home.
In total, 25 of 29 pieces of land scrutinized by the County Board, sitting as the Board of Equalization, were deemed to have enough agricultural activity to continue to warrant greenbelt designation — and the tax breaks that go along with it.
Of those, the County Assessor’s Office had recommended 14 of the cases retain the designation.
The cases weren’t without diversity, ranging from land used for row crops and cattle. There was land used to raise llamas that went to market and their wool to eBay bidders. There was land recognized by the federal government as a bona fide ag operation, and still others that didn’t carry such a distinction.
Among the denials: a landowner who fought to hold onto the designation with the claim his two children were enrolled in vocational agriculture courses and FFA; and other operations that failed to show a profit.
All have the option of appealing the decision to the state, or even reapplying for the designation in future years.
It’s only the beginning of the workload for board members, who have more than 100 cases scheduled for public hearing within the next week, with the number of protests growing by the day.
Late last month, more than 970 notices went out to landowners informing them they stood to lose the designation. The notices were prompted by a new state law that more narrowly defines what kind of land qualifies as greenbelt, though leaving the interpretations of the law to county assessors.
Greenbelt land is taxed on its agricultural use rather than its higher market value.
The County Clerk’s Office has received 160 protest filings, Deputy County Clerk John Glynn told the board. The deadline to file a protest is Monday. Information about how to file a protest is posted on the county’s Web site. Those who received a notice and don’t protest will automatically lose the designation.
U.S. Sen. Ben Nelson came under fire last year for land he owns in Sarpy County, prompting a review of its greenbelt designation. The land, which Nelson reportedly used for raising wild turkeys, eventually lost its status.
Though the protests overwhelmingly won approval, that’s not to say the decisions came easily, with the debate becoming especially heated during a discussion about a landowner who rents most of his land out for farming and lives on an adjoining acre.
Board member Ray Stevens, who frequently cast votes against letting protesting landowners retain the designation, argued he based his judgments on the primary use of the land, and not the acres involved.
“I think there’s some confusion about that,” he said.
Stevens doesn’t have an understanding of “agricultural,” board member and farmer Larry Hudkins argued, adding that if most of the ground is used for agricultural purposes, that should carry weight.
The argument made for some tense moments as the two butted heads on their interpretations.
After Hudkins snickered and shook his head in disagreement as Stevens made his points, Chairman Bob Workman interjected with a reminder that Stevens had the floor.
The frustrations stretched beyond board members. Rob Ogden, chief field deputy for the assessor’s office who sat in on Tuesday’s meeting, said he was disappointed in the board’s decisions.
“I think the board in general is misinterpreting what the statute is,” Ogden said, adding it’s the board’s right to make any decision it wishes.
During the hearings, Ogden on more than one occasion reminded the board to focus its decisions on the primary use of the land, each time appearing visibly frustrated.
“I think you could say if Ben Nelson’s property was in Lancaster County, he would qualify for growing turkeys,” Ogden said.
Reach Jean Ortiz at 473-7107 or jortiz@journalstar.com.
Copyright © 2002-2008 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.