Adams County 2014 Tentative Budget Includes Tax Hike

[moose]

The Adams County 2014 Tentative Budget, if approved, will be the second year (out of three), that these Commissioners have raised taxes. They can spin it any way they want, but the bottom line is they turned their noses to assessing hundreds of millions of additional tax base in the Clean & Green Program properly (and according to the law) and would rather pass that burden onto the other 90% of the real property owners. Those NOT in the C&G Program will pay a disproportionate amount of taxes, because the C&G land shall be assessed at a much lower rate. Even the REAL farmers will pay disproportionately because the taxes on their improvements shall be taxed at artificially higher millages due to the fact that so much land has been qualified for discounts that shouldn't receive them.

Additionally, the county happily hands out HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of dollars annually to one or two lucky families each year in the form of easements. We, the taxpayers, literally pay market value for land and get ZERO benefit from it. Meanwhile the owners are free to continue living on it and subdivide (and, sell) it according to the easement agreements. Meanwhile, we get to subsidize these lands that have NEVER been legally qualified for the preferential discounts. In summary, we buy AND pay the taxes on, land we'll never benefit from. Only in Adams County!

www.eveningsun.com/local/ci_24654909/adams-countys-2014-budget-includes-tax-hike

[lifesaver]

In all the Hoopla about the GMA and tax hike did anyone notice this little gem on the front page?  Wonder how this will pan out?

Commissioners plan Clean and Green update

BY JARRAD HEDES Times Staff Writer | Posted: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 12:10 am

Adams County commissioners plan to vote Wednesday on an updated "Clean and Green" policy, specifying how the county interprets certain situations within the program.

"We're hoping to start applying the policy changes on Jan. 1 for all currently enrolled properties," said County Tax Services Director Daryl Crum. "We've already visited all of those properties and reviewed them and their uses against this policy."

Established in Pennsylvania in 1974, the Clean and Green program allows owners of eligible properties of 10 acres or more to be assessed at a land use value rather than fair market value.

Qualifying property must be devoted to agricultural use, agricultural reserve or forest reserve.

The intent of the program is to encourage property owners to retain their land in agricultural, open space, or forest land use, by providing some real estate tax relief.

Adams County's Clean and Green program has operated since 1991.

"In the past, we've had to develop policy in a vacuum to deal with some specific issues as the guidance from the state is confusing," said County Solicitor John Hartzell last week. "Our goal is that now people will have clear guidance on how we interpret the law."

Crum said there are four major changes to the current Clean and Green policy.

According to Crum:

- all Clean and Green enrolled tracts of at least 10 homogeneous acres will now be categorized according to each tract's actual use;

- the county will now accept the recommended Clean and Green use values as determined by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture every year, regardless of whether, and to what degree, they change;

- land under and supporting uninhabitable or unused buildings that does not meet the definition of a "farm building" will now be categorized as "ineligible land" and valued at fair market value when the sum of all building footprint areas reaches a certain threshold; and

- a $100 civil penalty will be assessed for each non-roll-back tax triggering violation of the program.

"We're going from 'this is just the way we did things,' to actually having a policy," Commissioner Marty Qually said. "Different areas interpret things differently and we wanted to have something concrete that explains our position."

Carroll Valley resident Bruce Hollinger in November 2012 filed a lawsuit, which is still pending, in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas against Adams County officials alleging county officials have not properly assessed properties enrolled in the county program.

Hollinger alleged numerous properties enrolled in Clean and Green are ineligible for the classification but are enrolled anyway, resulting in unfair taxation of non-Clean and Green property owners.

He further alleged the county does not log visits to Clean and Green properties and has no standard operating procedures for the program.

Crum said several special situations in the current policy will now be clarified.

For example, fair market value for ineligible land is established to mean "the value per acre of the excepted out land area that it would have been worth, as determined by the county's Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) system, had no preferential assessment been in place."

Also, if a building exists on an enrolled parcel where commercial activity takes place in addition to the owner's residence, up to one acre will be considered farmstead land. If, because of the commercial use, more than one acre is needed, the additional acreage will be treated as ineligible use.

Land directly under greenhouses is considered to be "farmstead land."

Enrolled pasture land will be classified as "agricultural use" on horse farms.

Civil War battle re-enactments, in most cases, will not trigger a roll-back tax in most cases.

"One of our main goals as a board was to look at our Clean and Green processes and resolve any inconsistencies," Commissioner Chairman Randy Phiel said.

Crum said property owners have the right to appeal the county's determination of Clean and Green value to the county's Board of Assessment Appeals and Court of Common Pleas under the same appeal rights of the property assessment law.

[moose]

Dec 11, 2013 11:26:22 GMT -5 lifesaver said:

In all the Hoopla about the GMA and tax hike did anyone notice this little gem on the front page?  Wonder how this will pan out?

Commissioners plan Clean and Green update

BY JARRAD HEDES Times Staff Writer | Posted: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 12:10 am

Adams County commissioners plan to vote Wednesday on an updated "Clean and Green" policy, specifying how the county interprets certain situations within the program.

"We're hoping to start applying the policy changes on Jan. 1 for all currently enrolled properties," said County Tax Services Director Daryl Crum. "We've already visited all of those properties and reviewed them and their uses against this policy."

Established in Pennsylvania in 1974, the Clean and Green program allows owners of eligible properties of 10 acres or more to be assessed at a land use value rather than fair market value.

Qualifying property must be devoted to agricultural use, agricultural reserve or forest reserve.

The intent of the program is to encourage property owners to retain their land in agricultural, open space, or forest land use, by providing some real estate tax relief.

Adams County's Clean and Green program has operated since 1991.

"In the past, we've had to develop policy in a vacuum to deal with some specific issues as the guidance from the state is confusing," said County Solicitor John Hartzell last week. "Our goal is that now people will have clear guidance on how we interpret the law."

Crum said there are four major changes to the current Clean and Green policy.

According to Crum:

- all Clean and Green enrolled tracts of at least 10 homogeneous acres will now be categorized according to each tract's actual use; The Mustard: Golly Gee, isn't that what we were supposed to do before?

- the county will now accept the recommended Clean and Green use values as determined by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture every year, regardless of whether, and to what degree, they change;The Mustard: The Chief Assessor had the option, by law, to lower the use values, and she took full advantage of this in the past. Now, she has to use what the Dept. of Ag recommends (per the Commissioners). This is the one bright spot of the new policy. Those enrolled already pay only pennies on the dollar of assessed value, but she reduced it even further, just because she could!

- land under and supporting uninhabitable or unused buildings that does not meet the definition of a "farm building" will now be categorized as "ineligible land" and valued at fair market value when the sum of all building footprint areas reaches a certain threshold; and The Mustard: This isn't an eye opener. This won't make much difference.

- a $100 civil penalty will be assessed for each non-roll-back tax triggering violation of the program.The Mustard: This is already written in the law....duh!

"We're going from 'this is just the way we did things,' to actually having a policy," Commissioner Marty Qually said. "Different areas interpret things differently and we wanted to have something concrete that explains our position."The Mustard: That's what Mr. Wolfgang at the Dept. of Agriculture is for. The Dept of Ag has no enforcement authority, but they do serve as an advisory role in an effort to keep the Program running uniformly throughout all the Pa counties. Maybe you should call them Mr. Qually, and ask them sometime.

Carroll Valley resident Bruce Hollinger in November 2012 filed a lawsuit, which is still pending, in the Adams County Court of Common Pleas against Adams County officials alleging county officials have not properly assessed properties enrolled in the county program.

Hollinger alleged numerous properties enrolled in Clean and Green are ineligible for the classification but are enrolled anyway, resulting in unfair taxation of non-Clean and Green property owners.

He further alleged the county does not log visits to Clean and Green properties and has no standard operating procedures for the program.

Crum said several special situations in the current policy will now be clarified.

For example, fair market value for ineligible land is established to mean "the value per acre of the excepted out land area that it would have been worth, as determined by the county's Computer Assisted Mass Appraisal (CAMA) system, had no preferential assessment been in place." The Mustard: Wow! Very Good Mr. Crum. This is already written into the law...too bad we never followed it. All that tax money that got away...

Also, if a building exists on an enrolled parcel where commercial activity takes place in addition to the owner's residence, up to one acre will be considered farmstead land. If, because of the commercial use, more than one acre is needed, the additional acreage will be treated as ineligible use.The Mustard: In order for the "base acre" to be considered farmstead land (and qualify for the preferential assessment), the majority of the parcel must be devoted to agricultural use, which incidentally means they must take an agricultural product to market and sell it. This is written in the law, however the county has a VERY lenient interpretation of this part of the law.

Land directly under greenhouses is considered to be "farmstead land."The Mustard: Wow, big news on this one...

Enrolled pasture land will be classified as "agricultural use" on horse farms.The Mustard: Define horse farm? Pleasure horses don't qualify as an agricultural commodity, unless you bring them to market, hence commodity. The hay you feed to your pleasure horses, that you may harvest from your land does NOT qualify as a commodity (case law - not a commodity, unless sold) Sorry, horse lovers.

Civil War battle re-enactments, in most cases, will not trigger a roll-back tax in most cases.The Mustard: Aren't these folks sneaky! Agritainment doesn't disqualify land from preferential assessment. Agritainment is basically corn mazes, haywagon rides, etc. There is NO mention of re-enactments (third-party for-profit ventures) permissible without causing roll-backs. After notifying Mr. Phiel of the conflict of interest this posed, he recused himself from the vote. Shouldn't the Solicitor have advised him of the conflict of interest? The Commissioners expect this Solicitor to keep them out of trouble? Good luck with that!

"One of our main goals as a board was to look at our Clean and Green processes and resolve any inconsistencies," Commissioner Chairman Randy Phiel said.The Mustard: Have you been asleep the last few years? You could have asked me.

Crum said property owners have the right to appeal the county's determination of Clean and Green value to the county's Board of Assessment Appeals and Court of Common Pleas under the same appeal rights of the property assessment law.

I saw it and prepared a statement for the Commissioners' meeting today. I again voiced my opposition to reassessment Ordinance No. 3 of 2013 due to the unconstitutionality of raising the threshold of the COD to 20% when the courts established acceptable limits of 15% for the COD. Didn't matter...they passed the ordinance.

I also spoke against the New County C&G Policy, saying it wasn't needed. We have laws already in place or have case law to interpret them, that adequately address our needs. The only problem is that the County's wants/needs don't parallel what the law spells out, so the County needed to tweak the policy to fit their needs.

Keep in mind, I haven't seen the OFFICIAL Policy yet, although I do have my request in. I'm only going by what the reporter in the above article reported. These are my unofficial characterizations (above, in red) of what's been reported to date. Once I get the official policy, my thoughts could change, but I expect them to pretty much mirror what is reported here. I have a feeling that what has NOT been included in the policy, is the REAL meat and potatoes of this story. I suspect they haven't change some of the most basic and compelling aspects of how they administer/interpret the Program.


opposition to Ordinance 3 of 2013 - Addendum.pdf (163.59 KB)

[Dexter]

So Moose, no credit given for the commish's trying to rectify things? I mean seriously, you sure do like to criticize and spout on here how stupid folks are and how easy it would be to fix everything, why don't you recognize that they are trying to fix things! Your arrogance and "attitude" sure would turn a lot of people off to your cause.

[moose]

Dec 11, 2013 17:26:05 GMT -5 Dexter said:

So Moose, no credit given for the commish's trying to rectify things? I mean seriously, you sure do like to criticize and spout on here how stupid folks are and how easy it would be to fix everything, why don't you recognize that they are trying to fix things! Your arrogance and "attitude" sure would turn a lot of people off to your cause.

Until you've tried to fight city hall, you really don't know how the odds are stacked against you. Ask Venter how callous and frustrating it can be. Like I said, it is possible my view may change once they surrender the Official Policy for my review, but from the article in the paper, it looks much like the same stuff we've been hashing the last couple years. Most everything that was reported is already in the law. I did give credit to the ONE bright spot (land use values) that has changed. I wish I could be more obliging, but it looks like the court will need to rule on what's acceptable and what's not. Maybe I'll list the things they left out of the policy, once I see it officially. I think that is where the real story is. I've said in one of my posts, articles somewhere, that I don't think it's all on the Commissioners. They are being led/advised by the Solicitor and I've shown that he is tremendously biased on this subject. The Commissioners probably don't know all the intricacies of the law, and they have to rely on the Solicitor to advise them. They also aren't appraisers (although Jim Martin may be close) so they need to rely on the Chief Assessor for those type things. That is why I think that no matter WHO the Commissioners are...as long as the nominated folks remain in place, nothing much will change, unless the elected folks have enough balls to replace the nominated ones, with people they can trust. It should have been an easy call (for Mr. Hartzell) to inform Mr. Phiel that voting on a policy that specifically mentioned re-enactments, might just be a conflict of interest. Would you want someone advising you, who "forgot" to mention something as simple as that? I have personal experience with RTK requests that get stonewalled, delayed, denied just because I've asked for something that might shed some light on something. The closer you get to something, the harder it is to get what you want. If they didn't have anything to hide, they should gleefully hand over the information. You know who runs that show, don't you?

[Alex Oreilly]

Moose, when is your case supposed to be in court?

[lifesaver]

Dexter, I read moose as being assertive and knowing the facts in his dealings with the commissioners.  That is why he is getting attention.  I don't see anything wrong with calling it like you see it, and having the facts to back you up.  There should be more people out there like him, rather than the people who prefer to stay uninformed, or apathetic then bitch about the results because of it.

[Dexter]

More folks saying "Duh", "Have you been asleep" and "Golly Gee"? No thanks, we have enough of that in politics right now. And that is working out just great isn't it???

[lifesaver]

Dec 11, 2013 19:10:55 GMT -5 Dexter said:

More folks saying "Duh", "Have you been asleep" and "Golly Gee"? No thanks, we have enough of that in politics right now. And that is working out just great isn't it???

I'm saying you look beyond it to see the truth.  Are you saying that because you don't like moose's "delivery" that you support the inequalities in the Clean and Green Program? 

[moose]

Dec 11, 2013 18:33:29 GMT -5 Alex Oreilly said:

Moose, when is your case supposed to be in court?

I have no idea. Actually, I asked for a peremptory judgement, or in layman's' terms, I asked the judge to make a decision. That would avoid court and all the ugliness, however I don't know if the Judge has enough to make a decision. Naturally, I'm biased but I feel I gave him plenty and the defendants barely put up a fight, except to challenge my standing. It only takes a preponderance of the evidence. It's a complicated subject, and without precedent in this county, he'll need to look elsewhere for comparable cases.

Dec 11, 2013 18:57:12 GMT -5 lifesaver said:

Dexter, I read moose as being assertive and knowing the facts in his dealings with the commissioners.  That is why he is getting attention.  I don't see anything wrong with calling it like you see it, and having the facts to back you up.  There should be more people out there like him, rather than the people who prefer to stay uninformed, or apathetic then bitch about the results because of it.

Thanks Lifesaver! It's not fun putting yourself out there on a limb where people can take potshots at you. I'd much rather live my quiet comfortable life in the shadows as I have for the last 20 years, until this rotten reassessment came to be. I thought I was helping people meander their way through a maze of complicated issues. I cope the best I can, sometimes showing frustration....other times making light of others, BUT ALWAYS trying to present factual information. I'm not always right, but I try to be.

[Dexter]

No, lifesaver, I support civil discussion and respect for others. I bet there is a long history behind the current way of doing clean and green and I suspect Moose gets all kinds of push back from his inquiries because there is resistance to changing the status quot, but, I also I suspect his "delivery" has a lot do with it as well.

[lifesaver]

Dec 11, 2013 21:02:29 GMT -5 Dexter said:

No, lifesaver, I support civil discussion and respect for others. I bet there is a long history behind the current way of doing clean and green and I suspect Moose gets all kinds of push back from his inquiries because there is resistance to changing the status quot, but, I also I suspect his "delivery" has a lot do with it as well.

IDK Dexter, when I'm talking to friends, coworkers, family or posting on BoroVent  on an issue I feel strongly about I'm not above using terms such as Duh, Golly Gee, and even a few WTF's! thrown in for good measure. When I'm talking to the people that really matter I do so with civility and respect. You get nowhere otherwise.  Moose does the same.  Evidence his letter to the commissioners he referenced in a recent post. 

[Venter]

Dec 12, 2013 9:24:44 GMT -5 lifesaver said:

Dec 11, 2013 21:02:29 GMT -5 Dexter said:

No, lifesaver, I support civil discussion and respect for others. I bet there is a long history behind the current way of doing clean and green and I suspect Moose gets all kinds of push back from his inquiries because there is resistance to changing the status quot, but, I also I suspect his "delivery" has a lot do with it as well.

IDK Dexter, when I'm talking to friends, coworkers, family or posting on BoroVent  on an issue I feel strongly about I'm not above using terms such as Duh, Golly Gee, and even a few WTF's! thrown in for good measure. When I'm talking to the people that really matter I do so with civility and respect. You get nowhere otherwise.  Moose does the same.  Evidence his letter to the commissioners he referenced in a recent post. 

Exactly what I was thinking Lifesaver.

Like Moose said, "Just ask Venter!"
5 years of attending Borough Meetings, just to be treated like shit by Council.
The Powers-that-be just don't like anyone to question them.

Once "Challenged", they would rather fight, than to seriously look into the complaint.
If they would let their fucking egos go a little bit, maybe there'd be less conflict, and less hard feelings.

Weaker (or smarter) people would give up way before Moose, Paul, or I have.
There's just something about being right, and fighting for the right reasons - it feels like more of a DUTY to proceed in the face of such opposition.
I truly believe they just goad you on, until the point that you actually lose it in a meeting, and call them for what they are - and then they can BAN YOU from further meetings!

Dexter, I understand where you are coming from, but until you've been there, you'll never know.

[Dexter]

yes I can only react to what I see Moose post on here. I cannot assume that he acts differently elsewhere.

[SpellChecker]

Dec 11, 2013 18:14:45 GMT -5 moose said:

Dec 11, 2013 17:26:05 GMT -5 Dexter said:

So Moose, no credit given for the commish's trying to rectify things? I mean seriously, you sure do like to criticize and spout on here how stupid folks are and how easy it would be to fix everything, why don't you recognize that they are trying to fix things! Your arrogance and "attitude" sure would turn a lot of people off to your cause.

Until you've tried to fight city hall, you really don't know how the odds are stacked against you. Ask Venter how callous and frustrating it can be. Like I said, it is possible my view may change once they surrender the Official Policy for my review, but from the article in the paper, it looks much like the same stuff we've been hashing the last couple years. Most everything that was reported is already in the law. I did give credit to the ONE bright spot (land use values) that has changed. I wish I could be more obliging, but it looks like the court will need to rule on what's acceptable and what's not. Maybe I'll list the things they left out of the policy, once I see it officially. I think that is where the real story is. I've said in one of my posts, articles somewhere, that I don't think it's all on the Commissioners. They are being led/advised by the Solicitor and I've shown that he is tremendously biased on this subject. The Commissioners probably don't know all the intricacies of the law, and they have to rely on the Solicitor to advise them. They also aren't appraisers (although Jim Martin may be close) so they need to rely on the Chief Assessor for those type things. That is why I think that no matter WHO the Commissioners are...as long as the nominated folks remain in place, nothing much will change, unless the elected folks have enough balls to replace the nominated ones, with people they can trust. It should have been an easy call (for Mr. Hartzell) to inform Mr. Phiel that voting on a policy that specifically mentioned re-enactments, might just be a conflict of interest. Would you want someone advising you, who "forgot" to mention something as simple as that? I have personal experience with RTK requests that get stonewalled, delayed, denied just because I've asked for something that might shed some light on something. The closer you get to something, the harder it is to get what you want. If they didn't have anything to hide, they should gleefully hand over the information. You know who runs that show, don't you?

After all the time and effort you have put into this AND over how many years now? If you want to post" DUH" and "golly gee "go ahead. It took allot of your time, money and you having to file a lawsuit to finally get these idiots to even make an attempt to make this right. I say post what you want, people should be thanking you for your effort not nit picking over such stupid shit!