Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SB 10 Ag Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill to expand agricultural property-tax classification to pasture-based operations
Summary
Senate Bill 10, which would let certain pasture-based chicken and pig operations qualify for Colorado's agricultural property-tax classification if animals derive most of their diet from grazing and operations are commercial, passed committee 6–0 and was placed on the consent calendar.
The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Jan. 28 voted unanimously to advance Senate Bill 10, which narrows and clarifies Colorado's statutory definitions of "farm" and "ranch" so some pasture-based chicken and pig producers can qualify for the agricultural property-tax classification.
Sponsor Senator Roberts said the measure refines last year's draft to ensure the change helps legitimate commercial producers — particularly small and pasture-based operations — without extending the classification to backyard or hobby operations. The bill adds a definition of "pasture-based operation" that requires animals to derive a majority of their diet through grazing and requires the land be predominantly used for grazing and primarily operated for profit.
Supporters included the Colorado Farm Bureau (Brandon Melnikov) and Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (Madeline Robertson), who argued the clarification will modernize the definition, help small producers and rural tax bases, and level the playing field for operations that already use pasture-based systems. Weld County Assessor Brenda Donas, speaking for the Colorado Assessors Association, said assessors helped shape the language, that assessors will continue to require documentation and site inspections, that the property must be used as agricultural land for two years plus the current year to qualify, and that the ‘‘predominant use’’ and profit requirement will prevent most backyard or 4-H operations from qualifying.
Senator Kipp and other members pressed on the fiscal note: why the bill showed no state-level fiscal impact despite offering property-tax relief. Fiscal analyst Hansen told the committee his research indicated limited reclassification risk and that many pasture-based operators already had agricultural classification; he estimated the bill's state impact would be minimal (described in committee as "in the thousands to low tens of thousands of dollars, not millions").
The sponsor moved the bill to the Committee of the Whole with a favorable recommendation; the clerk recorded a 6–0 vote and the bill was placed on the consent calendar.
