Tax staff seek backstop for valuations, longer appeal window and clarify grazing income for current‑use

Jill Remick, director of property evaluation and review at the tax department, told an unidentified committee the department plans several modest changes to a miscellaneous tax bill intended to reduce delays in land‑use tax administration and clear up eligibility for current‑use treatment.

Remick said delays occur when local listers or assessors do not return statutorily required standalone valuations within the 30‑day statutory deadline, and that "the land use change tax is 10% of that valuation." She described a sequence of reminder emails and phone calls the department uses and asked for authority to set a provisional value after multiple unsuccessful contact attempts so the department can issue a land‑use change tax bill and avoid hindering real estate transactions.

The proposal also would address appeals. Remick said valuation appeals are now limited to a 14‑day mail‑in window at the local level and that appeals routed to the tax department often arrive after that deadline, forcing the department to deny them. She asked that the appeal window be extended to 30 days so taxpayers who are routed to the tax department can still pursue proper local appeals.

Remick described the existing revenue sharing for land‑use change tax receipts: municipalities retain 50% up to $2,000, and amounts above that are distributed to other funds. She said, with some uncertainty, that the collected amount above $2,000 appears to be split "75% education fund and 25% general fund." As a further proposal to encourage timely local valuations, the department suggested it would not remit the municipality's $2,000 share in cases where the department must perform the valuation itself after repeated attempts to reach local officials.

On automation, Remick said prior efforts with FPR to automate valuations (using rates or tables) have not produced reliable results because parcel‑level variability and unique property circumstances require a trained assessor: "real estate is a fickle beast and different parcels have very different values, and it requires someone who knows what they're looking at to make that valuation." She said, if the department must set a provisional value, district advisors and local assessment support professionals would work with her staff to estimate a value using available records and land schedules.

Remick also described a current‑use appeal involving grazing. To qualify under current use for gross income from crops, a taxpayer must show at least $2,000 in gross income. Casual neighbor grazing or in‑kind arrangements usually would not meet the threshold, but a paid grazing agreement that generated $2,000 or more could qualify. Remick confirmed that livestock—"including horses"—would be treated as livestock for these rules.

Committee members and staff raised capacity concerns if the tax department were required to perform many manual valuations; Remick and others noted Ways & Means would need to be involved if the department's workload increased. Remick also said the Agency of Agriculture would likely want to participate in further discussions about grazing and eligibility.

The committee did not take a formal vote on the proposed language during this segment. Staff indicated the department prefers that local assessing officials perform valuations whenever possible and presented the backstop and appeal extension as contingency measures to reduce taxpayer disruption.

Next steps: staff signaled they would continue consultation (including with the Agency of Agriculture and Ways & Means) and bring refinements back to the committee; no formal action was recorded in the provided transcript.