Madison County appraiser Stacey Rubio placed a stack of conservation use applications on the board of assessors’ table June 18, offering recommendations on what should qualify and what shouldn’t.
While the group discussed specific tracts, the talk also touched on the BOA’s overall perspective on conservation exemptions, with opinions varying on how stringent the group should be on the tax break.
There are 2,000 parcels and 76,855 acres in Madison County that have conservation use status, meaning the owners of those properties pay substantially less in taxes than others.
The conservation exemption was established by the state government, allowing farmers to maintain big tracts of land for agricultural purposes without being crippled by property taxes.
However, many complain that the conservation use exemption is abused by property owners who simply seek a tax break and have no intention of doing anything productive with their land.
Madison County commissioners addressed the abuse of the exemption in December, setting a 10-acre minimum for conservation use tax breaks in the county. Under the new guidelines, property owners seeking first-time conservation use status must have at least 10 acres of land to be considered. However, the 10-acre minimum won’t affect property owners with less than 10 acres, who currently enjoy the exemption, until 2012.
On June 18, Rubio made recommendations of approval or denial on a thick stack of conservation use applications. She informed the board that she had traveled to the properties in question and that the stack of papers represented about two days of work.
The BOA approved most of Rubio’s recommendations, but agreed to further discussion of three applications. Among those was a request for conservation status on a tract greater than 10 acres, where the property owner had no fencing, livestock, timber plan or hay or crop production.
Rubio said the applicant admitted that he is basically “growing kudzu” on the property. She recommended denial of the conservation application.
However, BOA member Larry Stewart pointed out that denying the request would not be in line with how conservation applications have been evaluated in recent years. He recalled the approval of a conservation application for a property owner who had 20 acres of pasture covered up with thistle weed, an invasive plant incompatible with cattle production.
“We have not used this criteria in the past,” said Stewart, regarding the proposed rejection of the kudzu-covered property.
New chief appraiser Robin Baker responded that “two wrongs don’t make a right.”
“Well, if you haven’t you need to start now,” he said.
Stewart and Jim Escoe voted in favor of the conservation use application, while Samantha Garland and David Ragland voted against it. With the 2-2 split, the board agreed to discuss the application at its next meeting. Another conservation use application also received a split vote and will be considered later, while a third application discussed Thursday, in which a small portion of a 10-acre tract is used for hay production, was approved by a 3-1 vote, despite Rubio’s recommended denial. Garland provided the lone vote in support of Rubio’s recommendation.
If Rubio really thinks that putting one's land into conservation status is some sort of scheme to get some huge windfall from a property tax break, she really is as clueless as an employee who quits / doesn't quit seems to be. Sure, one gets a relatively SMALL tax break in exchange for conservation status. But what you give up in return far outweighs any tax benefit. Once in conservation, one cannot build or develop ANYTHING non-agricultural on the property without paying ALL of the back tax break AND HUGE penalties. This means the county gets ALL of the tax money back PLUS interest and then some! This means the county gets MORE money from sellers with conservation status than non-conservation property owners, not less.
Putting land into conservation is a ten year commitment and a huge risk on the part of the property owner. It makes your land virtually unsaleable, and impossible to develop without paying all of the penalties above. Should one need to sell it, one is basically screwed financially.
With the biggest issue facing the world being climate change and the need to eliminate carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, growing trees or any plant, yes, even kudzu, is a legitimate conservation use of large plots of acreage and the rules should be modified to reflect this recognized need. Those plants are providing a valuable necessity, converting carbon dioxide into oxygen. We actually NEED "oxygen farmers;" citizens who are willing to put their land into conservation and are willing to just allow plants to grow on it instead of paving it or putting subdivisions on it. Subdivisions, I might add, for which there is no demand and houses that are not selling and are sitting vacant and in foreclosure meaning property values are decreased exponentially and NO PROPERTY TAXES are collected from owners who leave the key in the door and walk away. This is the problem in this county, encouraging foolish unsustainable development so a few real estate developers can stuff short-term money in their pockets. The problems we are experiencing were not created by and are not caused by responsible conservation owners! The conservation owners are the ones saving this county for future generations and feeding the generation that is here now. If you are breathing oxygen, you have a PLANT to thank. If we develop and pave everything, you will SUFFOCATE from lack of oxygen.
THANK YOU to the citizens who are willing to make this risky sacrifice and not develop their land and put it into conservation status. The little bit of money one doesn't have to pay in taxes is offset BIG TIME by the risk and the hit these citizens take on their ability to sell and property value. We should thank them - not hassle them.
How soon can we have new assessors in place? I know some good, smart citizens who are ready to serve.
WHERE IS THE CONFUSION? There are many landowners that continue to benefit from this tax break that DO NOT fit the criteria. WHY? Because the BOA has allowed this for years. There is plenty of money the county is not collecting due to this "free ride" for the select few. Let's not forgot about the "hunting club", a for PROFIT business that didn't have to pay $70,000+ in taxes! That was left for the other responsible property owners that actually pay their taxes, to pick up.
To farmers_wife, I don't feel bad that there are restrictions that are in place. Yes, 10 years is a long time & ones situation could change but it boils down to "it's a choice"! Kudzu & thistle weed as conservation land? That's blatant abuse. My yard happens to be weeds & moss. I think I deserve a tax break. Yes, that's blatant abuse. As long as the tax break is convenient it's ok. Sorry, you can't have your cake & eat it too! It's time to stop this irresponsible behavior & re-evaluate ALL conservation land so that everything is done legally.
and inspect property, by the looks inside the office
there, I only see a lot of pictures being taken out
in the field. Perhaps they need to cut the work force
in that dept. since they have plenty of time to take
pictures and not pay attention to property as they
are paid to do.
Did you EAT today? Then you should thank God first, a farmer second, and conservation status third. Because without that conservation status that farmer might not be able to afford to RAISE YOUR FOOD.