Pittsylvania County in uproar over proposed 20 percent tax increase on land-use program
Pittsylvania County officials and residents are up in arms about an expected 20-percent increase in property valuation for acreage under the county’s land-use program.
The Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution during its meeting Tuesday night asking the Commissioner of the Revenue to keep the current rate and “continue to offer an open door policy to accept farmer input on land use and all associated rates.”
Fred Wydner, director of Pittsylvania County Agricultural Development, said an increase in the land valuation rate would impact the county’s 1,364 farmers.
“It’s pretty significant,” Wydner said of the possible increase.
The county’s Agricultural Development Board has also passed a resolution similar to the one supervisors approved.
Wydner said he hopes that the Commissioner of the Revenue, the Board of Supervisors and farmers “work together to solve this in a way that is advantageous to everyone.”
The county’s 29-year-old land-use program offers incentives for farming by ensuring that space used for agricultural purposes is assessed at a much lower rate than other types of land. The county has about 335,000 acres in the land use program.
Today, the county’s real estate tax rate is 56 cents per $100 of assessed value. Someone owning an acre of real estate assessed and taxed at $3,500 — but not farmed under the land-use program — would pay $19.60 in real-estate taxes. A land-use participant would pay far less tax on that same piece of property — $2.44 — assessed at the current land-use rate of $435 per acre. If the rumored increase to $525 takes effect, a farmer under the program will pay $2.94 in tax.
The uncollected tax — the difference between that from land-use assessed value and non-land-use valuation — is classified as delinquent tax for five years, said County Administrator Dan Sleeper. If a farmer stops farming and leaves the land-use program within those five years, he or she must pay the difference, Sleeper said.
The land-use program keeps farming in heavily agricultural Pittsylvania County viable, said Chatham-Blairs Supervisor and Board of Supervisors Chairman Hank Davis.
“If farm land was valued as high as (other) land, it would be difficult for farmers to make a profit,” Davis said.
Last year, the county considered changing the program to ensure that those under it met its criteria. The alteration would have required those under land use to re-register every six years and pay a revalidation fee. The county eventually abandoned those efforts. However, the Board of Supervisors’ Legislative Committee will meet Tuesday in Chatham to revisit it.
“People who shouldn’t be in land use, we need to work on getting them out of it,” said Davis, a member of the committee who grows tobacco on about 80 acres of land.
No one has re-registered under land-use since the early 1990s.
As for the possible rate hike, Westover Supervisor Coy Harville said he found out about it from the county’s assessor. Harville expressed outrage that the Commissioner of the Revenue did not tell county officials or farmers about the increase.
“(It’s) unethical and wrong to do this under the table,” Harville said.
But Commissioner of the Revenue Sam Swanson said Friday the increased rate — which county officials say would rise about 20 percent from $435 per acre to $525 — is not a done deal. Swanson declined to comment further on the matter.
The Board of Supervisors’ resolution cites the county’s high land-use valuation as a reason to retain the present rate. “… The current land-use rate in Pittsylvania County is already 238 percent higher than the SLEAC (State Land Evaluation and Advisory Council) published rate for 2010,” the resolution states. The county’s land-use rate has been higher than SLEAC’s published values since 2001, the resolution states.
County residents spoke out against the possible land-use rate increase during citizen comment at the Board of Supervisors’ meeting Tuesday night.
Nancy Smith, who lives in the Tunstall District, expressed surprise at the possible increase and said the present economic slump is a bad time to raise taxes.
“We cannot continue to tax the people of Pittsylvania County in these times,” Smith said.
She and her husband raise cows, horses and hay on about 160 acres in Sandy River.
Darlene Doss, who lives in the Staunton River District, said she doesn’t participate in land use, but she grew up on a farm. Farmers who experienced the tobacco buyout did not benefit much from the program, but had to pay off debts with the money, she said.
“An increase of 20 percent is like a stab in the heart,” Doss said.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
lets not attack the farmers only the people who increase our taxe’s.I’m for the farmer i just don’t believe in property tax Florida has none.All it is is rent twice a year you can never pay off.The legitimate farmer needs more than a break.Instead of increasing. lay some of them goverment folks off and see what its really like in the real world.But for sure every one in goverment is there to better thereself and well being, and not ourselves.
Think that is something after the State of the Union di dyou hear Governor tell the biggest tale about jobs yeh he forgot to mentionhe is already going to cut jobs allaround and the Police are in eyesight.
The problem is simple. Make the farmers requalify each year. This would stop the abuse. I would estimate that less then 60 percent of the people in land use really qualify. As a county resident I would be in an uproar about those not paying their fair share. This is exactly why Pittsylvania County is constantly in a financial crisis,
danv - So the question is, when you farmed, did you take advantage of this special provision for assessments which was allowed for farmers? If you did, shutup! Because if you took advantage of that benefit, it’s hypocritical of you to criticize farmers who today take advantage of it.
Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you figure you are “better qualified” to address this issue than I?
Rockit, until I retired, I owned a Pittsylvania County farm which I have now sold and, in addition, I managed another farm for a family member.
I am better qualified to address Pittsylvania County land use tax than you are.
The land use program badly needs updating. I recently managed to register my farm in land use.Nothing to it, all it took was five trips to Chatham,and three years of tax returns to actually prove you are farming the land. That said, I was the only person on my state road not registered in the program and the only one that actually raised anything.The rest had been registered for years and I am told that at one time you did not have to prove you were actually farming just go register. Therein lies the rub, every one in the program should be required yearly to reregister and prove they are making an income from said land. This will not happen, too many people in charge registered and not farming. DANV—- I have seen some really stupid posts here over the years but you take the prize!!!!Every one does not raise tobacco, Where do you tkink your food comes from??? Oh I know Wendys, Burger King, Do you think they grow it in the back room at Piggly Wiggly??When the farmers can not make a living you my friend will be up the creek. But maybe our great Obama will feed you all, I hope you and yours are at the back of that line.
danv - You obviously have some heartburn with farmers. Perhaps you could elaborate. It seems that the farmers are simply trying to maintain a tax benefit they have enjoyed for some time now. Is this really any different from other constituencies trying to keep their benefits? Constituencies like, for example, elderly citizens trying to prevent cuts in medicare. Or, low income families trying to keep the earned income tax credit. What’s so special about farmers trying to keep one of their tax benefits?
Just a few years ago, farmers made a profit. But with the increase in fuel prices, fertilizer went up too high too fast too. Their products are selling for just about the same, but there is no profit anymore. Some are in debt so far, they just can’t get out without losing everything they have. So they keep refinancing, hoping for one bumper crop to get them out of the hole so they can quit. It is a revolving cycle. Kids in college like the rest of us, and farming is their only income, so they can’t quit. If fuel prices hadn’t went up so high, most wouldn’t be in this situation. But unless you want to pay much higher prices for your food, they can’t raise prices. We need to develop more fuel here in the USA, and quit letting our enemies bankrupt us.
I suppose the working man losing his job and not being able to keep up the mortgage payments on his home is nothing beside the plight of the “po’ farmer”.
I do credit the “po’ farmer” with sufficient sense not to stay in farming if he/she is not making a living income from the effort.
So why is the “working man” more financially able to pay his mortgage, living expenses, health insurance expenses, education expenses for his children, etc., than the “po’ farmer”?
It is the homeowners—- those with a acre or two of land on which sets their dwelling houses——that bear the brunt of the real estate and personal property tax burden of Pittsylvania and that is because the members of the Board of Supervisors always own a farm and are interested only in ways to keep their own tax bills as small as possible.
Personally, I think there should be a “homeowner’s usage” tax rate that is zero dollars if the homeowner is less than 100 years old.
So the farmer should just sell out and move off of land that has been in their family for generations, just because the Commissioner of Revenue thinks a 20% tax hike in the middle of a recession is sappropriate? How about raising the tax on certain houses 20%? This is ridiculous. It just shows how out of touch our “leaders” are with the working man. Nothing new there, I am afraid.
Advertisement