Conservative greenbelt rulings advised
The state’s property tax chief said Friday officials must make conservative greenbelt rulings and keep in mind their overall effect on taxpayers.
The comment comes as county leaders disagree with property assessors over a new greenbelt designation law.
The state greenbelt program was established in 1974 and designed to protect farmers near cities from property tax increases as encroaching development pushed up land values. Greenbelt land is taxed as agricultural land, rather than at a higher, speculative real estate value.
The Lancaster County Board of Equalization is hearing protests from landowners marked to lose their greenbelt status and the tax breaks that go along with it.
And Cathy Lang, the state’s property tax administrator, acknowledged the possibility of disagreements and mixed opinions.
But there are avenues in place to ensure officials uphold the intent of the law, she said.
Granting an exemption is akin to granting preference to a property owner, she said. Because that preference causes a shift in taxing responsibility to all taxpayers, decisions can’t be made liberally.
“If you’re going to grant someone an exemption … you better be very certain that they meet the requirement in the intent of the law,” she said.
The board on Friday continued hearing the cases of landowners protesting the loss of the designation. It took up 16 cases in its first morning session, reinstating greenbelt status for all but one.
The approved cases included a landowner who sold hay for profit, one who turned over his hay to a family farm that then went on to profit, and a landowner who boards — but doesn’t breed — horses.
Of the 16 cases, the county assessor’s office had recommended approval on six. The board has agreed it will approve protests that carry the assessor’s recommendation.
But the decisions continued to frustrate Rob Ogden, the county’s chief field deputy for the assessor’s office, who sat in on the hearings Friday as well as those Tuesday, which produced four denials out of 29 cases.
The board has been consistent in giving greenbelt designation to anyone who shows any kind of ag use — regardless if it’s the primary use of the parcel, he said.
“I know we have different views on that and that’s fine,” he told the board after restating the assessor’s focus on the land’s primary use.
But board Chairman Bob Workman said he believed there can be dual purposes.
“I think people buy property in the country to have a house and to farm,” Workman said.
For farmer and board member Larry Hudkins, the home doesn’t factor into the equation because it is taxed at full market value already.
His examinations have focused on the balance of the land and whether a majority of it is used for ag purposes that reflect a commercial operation.
Board member Bernie Heier, also a farmer, said he has looked for things like a Farm Service Agency number — signaling the federal government’s stamp of approval as an ag operation — as well as a tax Schedule F, which lists income and expenses for a farm.
Board members Ray Stevens and Deb Schorr were absent.
The county assessor’s interpretations of what land should qualify for the greenbelt are consistent with interpretations around the state, Lang said.
But Lang said she couldn’t comment on the board’s interpretations. She’s been out of town in recent days and has not followed the board’s rulings.
If there are cases where the assessor feels a greenbelt designation was inappropriately awarded, the assessor can appeal to a state tax equalization and review board, Lang said.
Ultimately, it may take a decision from the state Supreme Court to provide clarity — a point Lang made when she addressed the board April 19 to help them prepare for the protest hearings.
Landowners turned down for a reinstatement of greenbelt designation also can appeal to the state.
The County Board of Equalization has more than 100 hearings scheduled over the next week.
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 law that more narrowly defines what kind of land qualifies as greenbelt but leaves the interpretations of the law to assessors.
Reach Jean Ortiz at 473-7107 or jortiz@journalstar.com.
The comment comes as county leaders disagree with property assessors over a new greenbelt designation law.
The state greenbelt program was established in 1974 and designed to protect farmers near cities from property tax increases as encroaching development pushed up land values. Greenbelt land is taxed as agricultural land, rather than at a higher, speculative real estate value.
The Lancaster County Board of Equalization is hearing protests from landowners marked to lose their greenbelt status and the tax breaks that go along with it.
And Cathy Lang, the state’s property tax administrator, acknowledged the possibility of disagreements and mixed opinions.
But there are avenues in place to ensure officials uphold the intent of the law, she said.
Granting an exemption is akin to granting preference to a property owner, she said. Because that preference causes a shift in taxing responsibility to all taxpayers, decisions can’t be made liberally.
“If you’re going to grant someone an exemption … you better be very certain that they meet the requirement in the intent of the law,” she said.
The board on Friday continued hearing the cases of landowners protesting the loss of the designation. It took up 16 cases in its first morning session, reinstating greenbelt status for all but one.
The approved cases included a landowner who sold hay for profit, one who turned over his hay to a family farm that then went on to profit, and a landowner who boards — but doesn’t breed — horses.
Of the 16 cases, the county assessor’s office had recommended approval on six. The board has agreed it will approve protests that carry the assessor’s recommendation.
But the decisions continued to frustrate Rob Ogden, the county’s chief field deputy for the assessor’s office, who sat in on the hearings Friday as well as those Tuesday, which produced four denials out of 29 cases.
The board has been consistent in giving greenbelt designation to anyone who shows any kind of ag use — regardless if it’s the primary use of the parcel, he said.
“I know we have different views on that and that’s fine,” he told the board after restating the assessor’s focus on the land’s primary use.
But board Chairman Bob Workman said he believed there can be dual purposes.
“I think people buy property in the country to have a house and to farm,” Workman said.
For farmer and board member Larry Hudkins, the home doesn’t factor into the equation because it is taxed at full market value already.
His examinations have focused on the balance of the land and whether a majority of it is used for ag purposes that reflect a commercial operation.
Board member Bernie Heier, also a farmer, said he has looked for things like a Farm Service Agency number — signaling the federal government’s stamp of approval as an ag operation — as well as a tax Schedule F, which lists income and expenses for a farm.
Board members Ray Stevens and Deb Schorr were absent.
The county assessor’s interpretations of what land should qualify for the greenbelt are consistent with interpretations around the state, Lang said.
But Lang said she couldn’t comment on the board’s interpretations. She’s been out of town in recent days and has not followed the board’s rulings.
If there are cases where the assessor feels a greenbelt designation was inappropriately awarded, the assessor can appeal to a state tax equalization and review board, Lang said.
Ultimately, it may take a decision from the state Supreme Court to provide clarity — a point Lang made when she addressed the board April 19 to help them prepare for the protest hearings.
Landowners turned down for a reinstatement of greenbelt designation also can appeal to the state.
The County Board of Equalization has more than 100 hearings scheduled over the next week.
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 law that more narrowly defines what kind of land qualifies as greenbelt but leaves the interpretations of the law to assessors.
Reach Jean Ortiz at 473-7107 or jortiz@journalstar.com.
Copyright © 2002-2008 Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved.