It’s good to see that our state government is finally paying some attention to the great agricultural land property-tax hustle.
Most real estate is assessed, for tax purposes, at its market value. But agricultural land is assessed at its production value, which is generally a lot lower. That’s because, unless you’re growing marijuana, agriculture is a low-margin business. And as Coloradans, we want farmers and ranchers to stay in business because they provide the food we eat as well as the open vistas we cherish.
But the agricultural designation can be abused. I ran across one hustle in Custer County (the Wet Mountain Valley southwest of Pueblo) a few years ago. There was the typical rural development of a ranch cut up into 35-acre parcels. An acre of each parcel held the McMansions and their outbuildings. The other 34 acres was leased back to the developer for grazing, thus making it agricultural land, taxed at a much lower rate.
But the public services demanded by those “farmsteads” were identical to those for any other rural residential development. They wanted their roads maintained and plowed. They wanted the school bus to transport their offspring. They wanted trucks and crews to show up if somebody spotted a brush fire.
I suppose they were good modern Americans who wanted governmental services without paying for them.
One quirk of these arrangements: My friend Hal Walter raises and trains burros on his 35 Custer County acres. That pursuit might appear to be somewhat agricultural, but it isn’t. “I’d have to keep a cow here to get the ag designation,” he told me. “Donkeys don’t qualify.”
The ag hustle was attempted on a smaller scale in Chaffee County, where I live. Drive west from Salida on U.S. 50, look to the north as you near Maysville, and you can spot a most impressive gate. It has imposing stone gateposts that resemble components of a medieval castle. Swinging from the pillars are two wrought-iron gate halves, each about 10 feet high.
Interpreting symbolism is not my specialty, but I can tell where my kind is not welcome, and this gate sends a clear message.
When our county assessed the gate appropriately as ornamental architecture for a high-end development, the owner’s agent appealed to the board of commissioners. It was just a ranch gate to keep cattle where they belonged, she argued, and it shouldn’t be assessed at any more than you’d assess two wooden poles connected with four strands of barbed wire.
Fortunately, this argument failed to pass the laugh test.
However, there’s a lot of other “agricultural” property that would have trouble passing the laugh test, according to a report issued recently by a state task force, such as 4.3-acre “hayfield” behind a retail center in a golf community.
The task force, which included county assessors and commissioners, along with agricultural representatives, spent last summer looking at this issue and has produced a 157-page report with recommendations to the legislature.
I hope it doesn’t turn into some partisan battle. All we’re talking about here is simple fairness. As it is, town people in shotgun houses may pay higher property taxes than those rural mansion-owners who game the system with their pseudo-agricultural pursuits — and who demand their full share of public services. Either find a way to cut them off, or get them to pay their fair share.
Ed Quillen (ekquillen@gmail.com) of Salida is a regular contributor to The Denver Post.
