Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Craig County farmers urge board to adopt land‑use taxation to preserve farmland
Summary
A newly formed Craig County Farmers Committee presented a voluntary land‑use taxation plan at the June 6 meeting, arguing the program would preserve farmland, protect view sheds and reduce residential service burdens; a petition is circulating and the committee will report back to the board.
Members of the Craig County Farmers Committee presented a draft land‑use taxation plan during the public comment portion of the board meeting, urging supervisors to consider a voluntary program to preserve agricultural land and reduce the tax burden on working farms.
Angie Guthrie Potton, a committee member, opened the presentation by thanking local farmers and describing the committee’s purpose: to produce a plan for preserving farmland in Craig County. Rebecca Frango reviewed how land‑use classification works in Virginia — noting the program’s voluntary nature, categories for open land, forestry, agricultural/horticultural use, and the process for assessing market value versus use value for tax purposes.
Jim Joyce summarized economic arguments favoring land‑use taxation, citing a Virginia Cooperative Extension study that estimates administering the program requires roughly 51 hours per year on average and that farmland typically generates more local revenue while using fewer public services than residential development. Joyce said the program provides stewardship incentives and gave sample calculations for tax deferral and rollback liability. He argued: “If we continue to tax agricultural land without Land Use, we will tax Craig County out of existence.”
Presenters said the program is voluntary, described application requirements and fees, and explained rollback rules commonly used in Virginia (payment of deferred taxes with interest for a specified lookback period, typically five years, if land leaves the program). The committee is circulating a petition and plans to return to the Board with progress updates in coming months. Board members asked procedural questions about transfers and the tax rollback process; presenters clarified that transfers within the family used for continued farming do not necessarily trigger repayment, but land removed from agricultural use would trigger the rollback payment as described.
No board action was taken at the meeting; the presentation was recorded for future consideration by the Board.
