Bit of a clarification. Parcels of land larger than five acres are not “presumed” to be of agricultural use. Proof has to be provided by the land owner that one of four unique agricultural criteria are met on the property, and this proof has to supplied to the tax assessor.

Exempting productive agricultural land from taxation is one way to preserve a number of very beneficial aspects to communities within the taxing district. But, the $1,000/year production value identified in 63-604.b.ii is a bit off. The clause should be read in concert with the threshold listed in the preceding section, 63-604.b.i (15% of the owner’s or lessee’s annual gross income).

B.ii was written with the presumption that the average farmer was taking in around $6,667 per year, and that he shouldn’t be penalized (by loosing his Ag tax exemption) if he earned less than this amount – so the production threshold was set at $1,000/year, or 15% of gross annual income (15% of $6,667 is $1,000).

I don’t have a problem with the 15% figure, but the $1,000/year threshold no longer makes sense. The benefit of the exemption has to made to the jurisdiction leveling the tax – and the thresholds need to be contextual to the incomes in the taxing district. I don’t think there are a lot of Eagle property owners squeezing by on less than seven grand a year! If the property owner’s annual income is $50,000/year (the average household income in Ada County), then the minimal amount of ag product harvested off the property should be $7,500 (15% of $50K).

And, if the owner happens to be a cardiothorasic surgeon (earning around $285,000 per year after two years experience) – either his “farm” has to produce more than $43,600 per year to qualify for an exemption, or s/he must lease it to a sharecropper who will glean at least 15% of his/her annual income to secure the exemption for the surgeon’s property.

Leave the 15% threshold in place, but strike the $1,000 limit. It’s fair, and won’t unduly drive away real ag production (whether the land is farmed by the owner or a sharecropper).

EDITOR NOTE–Good points all George. Problem is the code talks about meeting ANY, not ALL the requirements. Lt. Guv Risch leases the “Cliffs” to graze a few head of cattle…hardly worth 15% of his income. The law has been amended way too many times to make sense today.

Not sure that penalizing the owner because land doesn’t earn the correct percentage of the owner’s income makes sense in this era of urban sprawl and reckless use of resources.

Seems to me anything that keeps the land open and the weeds down is a good thing no matter who owns it. And, frankly as the owner of seven grazing animals, anyone who grows hay close to Boise should be encouraged not discouraged.

Say, an electronics firm owns 60 acres of land and 30 of it is in hay. Do you really think it would be better for our quality of life and for the hay-buying public to force that company to develop the land willy-nilly by raising taxes until there is no other choice?

I was involved in some litigation regarding these statutes a few years back. I received a list of all who had the exemption. What is impressive is the array of large corporate landholding entites who qualify for the exemption on vast tracts they own, like Idaho Power for one. The last folks you’d think would qualify for this tax break.

If the idea originally was not to overburden the small family farm, the policy has far outlived its usefulness. Particularly now with government subsidies encouraging land to lie fallow and the fact that Idaho is reaching the limits of useable water in the state, encouraging ag use seems contradictory.

I have to agree with Anne, to a point. I would say we should allow a reduced-impact fee. Ever see the fields around HP? Do you think HP pays full price for those fields? They pretty much stand empty all the time.

The problem with Mr Logic’s, logic, is that a developer can come in, and get land re-zoned from ag, to something else, and destroy farms. It has been happening all over this area. New residential properties go up, and overnight, a farmer’s land skyrockets in value, to the point that he can’t pay taxes on it.