|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 21
|
|
|
|
|
52
|
|
JOURNAL OF PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a special assessment that is equal to or at the same rate as the
agricultural use assessment. In other words, lands meeting the
special criteria are valued for assessment purposes at a maximum
of $400 per acre. It should be noted that this value is
determined without regard to the present actual use of the land
and does not depend on the fair market value of the land for
development.
Section 278F provides for the imposition of an Agricultural
Transfer Tax upon the sale of land receiving the agricultural use
assessment provided by Section 19(b). If the purchaser of the
farmland refuses to sign a Declaration of Intent promising to
maintain the land in its agricultural use, the Agricultural
Transfer Tax is imposed at a rate ranging from 3% to 5% of the
consideration paid for the land.
Senate Bill 778 amends Section 19(f) and Section 278F and
provides that upon the sale of land receiving the planned
development special assessment, the Agricultural Transfer Tax
will be imposed in the same manner and to the same extent as it
is imposed on the sale of agricultural land receiving the
agricultural use assessment. The funds collected would be
targeted for State and county agricultural land preservation
programs. Thus, with certain exceptions, land that currently
receives the planned development special assessment will be
subject to the Agricultural Transfer Tax when it is sold should
the provisions of this bill become law.
As expressly stated in Sections 19(b) and 19(f), the General
Assembly intended the special and lower assessments provided in
those independent provisions to accomplish quite different yet
equally important land use strategies against urban sprawl.
In the instance of the agricultural use assessment, its
purpose was to prevent forced farmland conversion and to preserve
existing farms. On the other hand, in the case of the planned
development special assessment, the General Assembly obviously
intended the special assessment to serve as an incentive to
landowners to forego quick profits and to encourage them to
engage in orderly and staged development.
The differences between these two special assessment
programs can also be seen in the nature of the penalty or
"discouragement" taxes previously added to both programs. For
example, in 1969 the General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 139
which not only imposed a recapture type tax on the conversion of
land receiving the agricultural use assessment but also added
provisions that allowed planned development lands a lower
assessment. This same bill provided for a penalty tax when the
planned development lands failed to continue to meet the special
zoning criteria. Through enactment of these provisions in same
bill, the General Assembly clearly indicated its intent that when
the objectives of the two special assessment programs were no
longer met, there should be some sort of penalty tax. Although
the original deferred tax imposed on the conversion of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
