Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fluvanna Farm Bureau president defends land-use taxation, warns of fiscal costs from subdivision
Summary
A local farmer and Farm Bureau leader told supervisors that land-use taxation helps the county avoid service costs tied to development and warned that losing land-use benefits would raise costs for county taxpayers and strain infrastructure and schools.
Channing Snoddy, president of the Fluvanna County Farm Bureau, told the Board of Supervisors on Sept. 17 that local land‑use taxation saves the county money by keeping farmland out of the tax base for full market valuation and by avoiding the service costs associated with residential subdivision.
Snoddy described a hypothetical 94‑acre parcel with 20 acres of hay producing modest farm income and said under a sample market valuation the parcel would produce taxes that fail to cover services once residential lots and school enrollments are considered. "In 30 years, the piece of property would be losing $31,500 in taxes," he said in his example, and added that new households create ongoing costs for schools, police, fire and infrastructure that can exceed one-time tax receipts from development.
Why this matters: Countywide land-use rules determine whether farmland is assessed at agricultural use value or higher market value; changes to the land‑use program or its rate would affect family farms, rural character, and county revenues and costs.
Requests and context: Snoddy urged the board to preserve land-use taxation and warned that raising the land‑use rate or removing land‑use classification would push farmers to sell to builders, reduce rural character and raise taxes for residents on fixed incomes. He cited a Virginia Tech land‑use study presented locally years earlier and emphasized that agricultural parcels generally demand fewer public services than residential subdivisions.
County response: Supervisors thanked Snoddy for the presentation; the meeting did not include board action to change land-use policy. No fiscal model or ordinance change was proposed at the Sept. 17 meeting.
Ending: Snoddy's presentation placed a fiscal, service-cost argument on the public record as the board considers development and tax policy, but no policy change was proposed or adopted at this session.
