Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agricultural Property Definition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee deadlocks on agricultural-property definition; moves to 'no committee recommendation' after tied votes
Summary
Senate Bill 2039, which would clarify when storage facilities qualify as agricultural property, drew extended debate. An initial due-pass motion produced a tie; subsequent motions produced tied roll calls and the committee moved to register no recommendation and reconvene later.
Senate Bill 2039, a proposal to clarify the definition of agricultural property and when storage facilities qualify for agricultural classification, drew extended discussion before the Finance and Taxation Committee and produced tied roll-call outcomes.
Chairman Weber opened the discussion by saying the bill seeks to clarify longstanding county differences and that “the committee was aware of all of that information” from an interim review. Weber argued the legislature historically did not intend to tax farm buildings and emphasized agriculture’s statewide economic role: “agriculture is a $3,200,000,000 industry.” He said the bill is intended to eliminate inconsistent county interpretations and not to create a new exemption.
Opponents cited legal guidance and local consequences. Senator Romo noted an Attorney General opinion by former A.G. Wayne Stenehjem and State Tax Department guidance, saying, “the use of a structure to store grain does not convert the land upon which that structure is located into agricultural land.” Romo warned the bill could produce unintended consequences such as exempting new facilities inside incorporated cities and said affected landowners have not pursued court remedies in the past.
Senator Wallin and others pointed out the bill covers agricultural-product storage broadly (grains, potatoes, beets) and affects where products are stored after harvest, not only operations in particular regions. After debate, Senator Wallin moved a due-pass recommendation on Senate Bill 2039; Senator Powers seconded. The clerk recorded a roll call that produced a 3–3 split (Chairman Weber: Yes; Vice Chair Rummel: No; Senator Marsola: No; Senator Patton: No; Senator Powers: Yes; Senator Wallin: Yes).
Following the tied result, Chairman Weber moved a do-not-pass recommendation; that motion was seconded. The clerk recorded a second roll call (Chairman Weber: No; Vice Chair Rummel: Yes; Senator Marsola: Yes; Senator Patton: Yes; Senator Powers: No; Senator Wallin: No). Seeing the tie, Senator Patton moved to enter no committee recommendation on the bill and the clerk again recorded votes with the same split. The transcript does not record a final disposition beyond those recorded roll calls.
Committee members debated whether the bill would in practice exempt structures inside incorporated cities, the appropriate boundary between farm storage and commercial activity, and whether affected parties should have sought judicial resolution. The committee adjourned to meet again at the chair’s call.
