[Previous entry: "Looks Like: Nou & Johnson For Sheriff"] [Next entry: "Seemed Like The Right Thing To Do At Time"]

08/20/2010: "PC Meets Friday On Property Tax Break For Potential Farming"

(08-20-10) The San Juan County Planning Commission once again took up the controversial issue of changing the "rating system for Farm and Agricultural Conservation Land" (FACL) to bring it in line with current provisions of the law that would make it less difficult to obtain a property tax break.

The issue was hotly debated the last time the PC took up the issue, because the change would allow a tax break on qualifying lands because they could be farmed, as opposed to must be farmed to receive a property tax break.

PC Chair Susan Dehlendorf joined those voting against the proposal the last time around, stating that for those who are in the "open space" program and not farming as they are required and agreed to do, and now owe back taxes and penalties because of it: "It is time for them to start of their tractors."

Currently there are approximation seventeen land owners that are in non-compliance due to lack of farm production on their lands, and the State has told the County they do not qualify for the property tax breaks they have been receiving; money that the rest of property owners have been pickicg-up on their tax bills.

If the changes proposed are adopted, it will allow (1) those in the current ag program to transfer into the FACL classification if they can meet the proposed less demanding rating system, and (2) allow those currently not in the ag program -because of a lack of willingness to farm the land if it did qualify- to receive a tax break even if they never had any intention of farming in the first place.

The Washington Administrative Code (WAC 458-30-242) sets out the application criteria and the minimum state requirments and process that must be followed to enter the for “open space/farm and agricultural conservation land classification.”

Those opposed to the change point out the law was intended to provide farmers an incentive to not subdivide their farm land for, example, into a track home development.

Made sense as a state wide concern, but San Juan County has few large farms that could be subdivided, even if the owners wanted to, so opponents to the change ask: Why give them a tax break?

The other side argues that there are small patches of acres that could be subdivided, and the proposed changes may keep them from being developed.

Problem with that argument is the profit to be gained by subdividing is greater than any property tax befit that can be gained in any of the so-called "open space" programs; so why would one not subdivide if they could?

The tax incentive will allow a tax break for those who can qualify, not because they planned to subdivide -assuming they could get all of the permits in the first place- but because they can qualify for a tax break.

As more than one Commissioner pointed out at the last meeting: "Why reward them for doing something they are already doing, and will continue to do?"