CoUntRy Life Ohio’s Country Journal


CaUV’s big savings not enough to eliminate shocking tax increases


ByMatt Reese Yikes! Farmers around the state have


been learning of the increase in land values and the resulting increases in the taxes they owe on that land. But, before muttering too loudly about the sharp rise in their taxes on re-assessed land, farmers need to consider the amount of money they are saving through Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV). It is CAUV enroll- ment that has allowed for only a “Yikes!” in the place of a “YIKES!!!!” Nonetheless, there have been plenty


of questions about the shocking rise in taxes in recent years. “We’ve been spending quite a bit of


time talking to farmers about CAUV and the increases that people have been see- ing,” said Chad Endsley, director of agri- cultural law for the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. “CAUV values are deter- mined for each of about 3,500 different soil types in Ohio by a formula that is administered by the Ohio Department of Taxation. The formula uses the following factors: crop yields, crop prices, cropping patterns, other non-land production costs and a capitalization rate based upon interest rates. Right now we have yields that are increasing, crop prices at record or near record highs, expenses that have been increasing but not at the same rate as crop prices, and interest rates at his- toric lows. As a result, CAUV values have increased substantially. You notice that increase even more so because the tax values are updated every three years. Rather than seeing incremental increases every year, you only see a change every three years, which makes that change much more significant.”


Farmers around the state have been learning of the increase in land values and the resulting increases in the taxes they owe on that land. Though the increase may be shocking,


Ohio’s farmers still enjoy tremendous tax breaks on their land compared to most other landowners in Ohio and farmers in other states. “I think that Ohio still has one of the strongest CAUV programs in the nation.


Year of CAUV sexennial reappraisal and triennial update 2012 reappraisal counties


Belmont, Brown, Crawford, Cuyahoga, Erie, Fayette, Highland, Huron, Jefferson, Lake, Lorain, Lucas, Morgan, Muskingum, Ottawa, Portage, Stark, Warren, Williams


2013 reappraisal counties Carroll, Champaign, Clark, Fairfield, Logan, Marion, Medina, Miami, Ross, Union, Wyandot


2014 reappraisal counties Ashland, Ashtabula, Athens, Butler, Clermont, Fulton, Greene, Knox, Madison, Montgomery, Noble, Summit, Wayne


2012 update counties 2013 update counties


2014 update counties Allen, Coshocton, Guernsey, Sandusky, Vinton


Adams, Columbiana, Hancock, Hocking, Holmes, Lawrence, Meigs, Monroe, Paulding, Scioto, Tuscarawas, Washington


Auglaize, Clinton, Darke, Defiance, Delaware, Franklin, Gallia, Geauga, Hamilton, Hardin, Harrison, Henry, Jackson, Licking, Mahoning, Mercer, Morrow, Perry, Pickaway, Pike, Preble, Putnam, Richland, Seneca, Shelby, Trumbull, Van Wert, Wood


In many other states, they simply would apply a reduction to whatever the fair market value would be. Maybe it would be a 50% reduction of the fair market value. In Ohio, in many counties, farm- ers are actually paying much less than 50% of what they would be paying if their land was assessed at its fair market value,” Endsley said. “You can actually go to your auditor’s office and find out what your land value would be if it were taxed at fair market value. You can calculate what you are saving because you are enrolled in the CAUV program. I think you will find that even with the increases that you have been seeing — even if it’s a 100% to 200% increase of your CAUV value — you’re still getting a significant savings.” When the CAUV program was adopt-


ed in the mid 1970s, it was designed to reduce taxes by around 50%. In 2005, CAUV provided a 90% reduction in taxes and in 2010 the reduction was 75% for Ohio’s farmers. It is also important to remember that


there are plenty of folks out there who would like to see CAUV weakened or eliminated. Ohio has a long history of CAUV battles in the courts.


“Recently, several county auditors


have kicked people out of the CAUV program who had land enrolled in cer- tain conservation programs. There is a pending lawsuit in Ashtabula County where the county auditor has made a somewhat creative argument that it is unconstitutional for land enrolled in a conservation program to be enrolled in CAUV,” Endsley said. “Because we are very protective of the CAUV program and we understand the importance of conservation practices and programs, we were very concerned that this court case could result in all land enrolled in con- servation programs no longer qualifying for CAUV.” Farm Bureau filed an amicus brief in


the case explaining the history of CAUV and the value of conservation programs in agriculture. “We believe that it is authorized by


the Ohio constitution to allow land enrolled in conservation programs to remain in CAUV,” Endsley said. “And, if that policy needs to be changed, it needs to be the General Assembly that makes those changes rather than the courts. We will continue to fight to pro- tect CAUV in Ohio.”


Ohio’s Country Journal • ocj.com • March 2012 • Country Life 45


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56