This is an interesting article from the Denver Post about the pervasive agricultural property tax classification and treatment of lands in the state of Colorado that have questionable agricultural enterprise value.
Once an agricultural classification is granted, it’s difficult to take away. Property owners don’t have to submit tax documents to show there is an agricultural enterprise, so the burden is on assessors to monitor the land use.
Here in Custer County, Colorado, there are a multitude of landowners within the 35 acre rural subdivisions who do not participate in subdivision agricultural activities by fencing livestock under subdivision cattle grazing leases from their properties.
Should the assessor continue business-as-usual by continuing ag status for these landowners who really have no agricultural enterprise on their land, or should present land use be more closely monitored by the assessor using criteria to determine the applicability of ag property tax status?
Colorado tax break intended for struggling farmers enriches developers, investors
By Christopher N. Osher and Eric Gorski
The Denver Post
Posted: 03/06/2011 01:00:00 AM MST
Updated: 03/06/2011 12:54:56 PM MST
Appraiser David Niles of the Jefferson County assessor’s office looks for signs of farming activity on vacant land off U.S. 36 in Jefferson County that is taxed as agricultural, receiving a significant tax break. In some cases, land designation has gone back and forth. (Joe Amon | The Denver Post)
First of two parts
One of the biggest players in Douglas County agriculture, at least for tax purposes, is not in the business of growing wheat or grazing cattle.
It builds subdivisions.
About one in six of the county’s parcels taxed as agricultural are owned by subsidiaries of Denver home builder MDC Holdings Inc.
In Broomfield County, another hotbed of suburban growth, a staggering 95 percent of the county’s agricultural parcels are controlled by developer, commercial or investor interests. No one owns more land on the agricultural tax rolls there than Pulte Homes of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., the nation’s largest homebuilder.
From Denver’s outskirts to exclusive mountain communities, the
story line is similar. Developers and corporations more interested in bulldozing land for houses and strip malls than raising cattle or crops are saving millions of dollars in taxes by taking advantage of a state law meant to help struggling farmers.
A Denver Post investigation of property-tax records sheds new light on the extent of the practice: Developers and firms with little or no ties to actual farming own at least 40 percent of the nearly 54,000 parcels classified as agricultural in eight Front Range counties.
The lenient tax structure saves developers, businesses and others who have no real mud on their boots an estimated $366 million a year in those counties, according to a Post analysis using data from CoStar Group, a Washington-based commercial real estate research firm.
In 10 mountain counties analyzed by The Post, developers and others that don’t meet the traditional definition of farmer or rancher own at least 9 percent of the 23,244 agricultural parcels.
The practice has continued unabated even though assessors have been complaining for decades. The latest proposed fix making its way through the legislature makes only marginal changes and would have no effect on how developers use ag
East of Castle Rock.Land taxed as agricultural surrounds a subdivision near Franktown. The parcel is among more than 1,000 Douglas County ag parcels owned by a subsidiary of Denver homebuilder MDC Holdings. (The Denver Post)
taxation.
An array of special interests finds common cause in keeping the status quo — from farmers who fear any weakening of the law to high-end resorts and homebuilders who contend higher taxes on undeveloped land will lead to higher home prices.
“The constituencies that currently benefit from the tax break don’t want a change,” said state Rep. Matt Jones, a Louisville Democrat. “And there’s not a strong constituency for the average taxpayer.”
Jones, a member of the House agriculture committee, said The Post’s findings show the issue deserves more attention.
“All taxpayers should pay their way, and developers should not get a big ag exemption when they’re holding property for speculation,” he said.
East of Thornton Boxed in by homes in Adams County sit 86 acres owned by Clear Channel Communications Inc. The media conglomerate pays about $86 in property taxes annually on those ag holdings. (The Denver Post)
Along the Front Range, big business also turns to the ag designation to slash tax bills — including the Clear Channel radio and communications conglomerate, Denver’s Furniture Row Cos. and IBM.
Former Gov. Dick Lamm, who held the office in the 1980s when voters approved a constitutional change that allows the ag tax breaks, thinks new restrictions are warranted.
“I think it is a shame, and it adds to sprawl,” Lamm said. “It is unfair, and it unjustly enriches people. It allows people to tie up land under so-called agriculture and use it as a speculator’s device.”
The financial impact depends on how counties navigate Colorado’s tax limitation system. In some counties, the money would go to lower everyone
Outside Centennial Dove Valley Business Park Associates owns about 64 agricultural lots of about 5 acres each near the Denver Broncos practice facility in Arapahoe County. One 3.6-acre parcel had a property tax bill of $68. (The Denver Post)
else’s property taxes. In others, the extra money would flow into the general funds of counties, special districts and any other taxing entity — and to school districts.
The state budget is also affected because the state must step up and help finance school districts when local tax revenue can’t cover the cost.
Developers defend their use of the agricultural tax break, saying it gives them flexibility while they wait for an ailing real estate market to rebound. They also say the tax break lowers the costs of new homes and predict they’ll have to pass increased costs on to homebuyers if the system is abolished.
“I don’t think the objective of Colorado policy ought to be to make homes less affordable,” said Steve