• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Abstract
 Foreword
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 Introduction
 Use value assessment of agricultural...
 Property tax burden on farm...
 Implications and conclusions
 Reference
 Data sources
 Definitions and sources














Group Title: Economics report - University of Florida Food and Resource Economics Dept. ; 100
Title: Burden of the property tax on agricultural producers in Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027707/00001
 Material Information
Title: Burden of the property tax on agricultural producers in Florida
Series Title: Economics report - University of Florida Food and Resource Economics Dept. ; 100
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Milton, J. Walter
Clayton, Kenneth C.
Graham, Gerald F.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Publication Date: 1980
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027707
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 7184587

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Abstract
        Abstract
    Foreword
        Page i
    Table of Contents
        Page ii
    List of Tables
        Page iii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
    Use value assessment of agricultural land
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
    Property tax burden on farm proprietors
        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
    Implications and conclusions
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
    Reference
        Page 32
    Data sources
        Page 33
    Definitions and sources
        Page 34
        Page 35
Full Text













THE BURDEN OF THE PROPERTY TAX

ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS IN FLORIDA



ABSTRACT


The State of Florida employs use value assessment of agricultural

land to promote equitable taxation of farmland owners and to discourage

the conversion of agricultural land to urban development. This report

analyzes the effectiveness of this use value program by determining the

property tax burden on agricultural producers by county during the 1974-

1977 period. The results show that the percent of income paid for the

property tax by the farm sector is greater than that paid by other Florida

taxpayers. Also, the property tax burden on agricultural producers varies

considerably between counties,












KEY WORDS: Property tax, tax burden, Florida agriculture, tax studies,
use value assessment













FOREWORD


One of the principle objectives of a sound tax policy is equitable

taxation. The equity of the property tax has been the subject of extensive

research in recent years, yet many conflicting opinions exist about the

merits of the tax. In Florida, property tax research has been limited,

due in part to lack of an accurate and consistent data series. However,

recent legislative requirements and new data sources have made it possible

to examine tax issues relevant to state policy.

This report utilizes these new sources to examine the burden of the

property tax on agricultural producers in Florida. Because the property

tax is a major source of local government revenue and the use value assess-

ment program is Florida's principal means of discouraging the conversion

of agricultural land to other uses, these results have important implica-

tions for state tax policy. It should be noted that some secondary data

are used in the analysis; the conclusions in the report should therefore

be considered somewhat tentative until better data become available.

However, since the purpose is to identify trends in the property tax bur-

den among agricultural producers, this deficiency is not critical, This

report should be considered an initial effort to identify the tax burden

on the Florida farm sector and a source of information about the role of

tax policy in effecting desired land use.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Our thanks to Carolyn Almeter for valuable programming assistance

and to Joyce Gorman for patient deciphering and typing of the manuscript.










TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


FOREWARD . . . . .

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . .

LIST OF TABLES . . . .

INTRODUCTION . . . .

USE VALUE ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND .

Overview . . . .

Florida's Use Value Assessment Program


PROPERTY TAX BURDEN ON FARM PROPRIETORS .

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS . . .

Comparative Tax Burden . . .

Conclusion . . .. .

REFERENCES . . . . .

APPENDICES

A--Data Sources . . .


B--Definitions and Procedures . .


i

*.iii

.. 1

4


4
. . 4

. . 8

. 11

. 27

. 27


rr


. . .








LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1. 1977 Just Value to Use Value Ratios and Percentage Change
in Acres of Farmland, 1959-1974, Florida Counties . .. 10

2. Just Value Per Acre of Agricultural Land by County,
1974-1977 . . . . . .. 13

3. Use Value Per Acre of Agricultural Land by County,
1974-1977 . . . . . . 14

4. Tax Paid Per Acre of Farmland by County under Use Value
Assessment, 1974-1977 . . . . 16

5. Tax Paid Per Acre of Farmland by County under Just Value
Assessment, 1974-1977. . . . . 18

6. Difference between Percentage Change in Tax Paid Per Acre by
County with Just Value Base Instead of Use Value Base,
1974-1977 . . . . . . .19

7. Net Farm Proprietor's Income by County, 1974-1977 . .. .21

8. Net Farm Proprietor's Income Per Average Farm by County,
1974-1977 . . . . . . 23

9. Property Tax Paid as a Percent of Adjusted Net Farm Income
under Use Value Assessment by County, 1974-1977 . .. 24

10. Property Tax Paid as a Percent of Adjusted Net Farm Income'
under Just Value Assessment by County, 1974-1977 . 26

11. Property Taxes as a Percentage of Adjusted U.S. Farm
Proprietor's Income, 1972-1977 . .. . . 28







THE BURDEN OF THE PROPERTY TAX


ON AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS IN FLORIDA


J. Walter Milon, Kenneth C. Clayton
and Gerald F. Graham


INTRODUCTION


The property tax is a subject that has engendered lively, sometimes

passionate, discussion. From the learned debates in ancient Greece be-

tween Aristotle and Plato to the vociferous controversy over Proposition

13 in California, the objectives and effectiveness of land taxation have

been subjected to intense scrutiny, Proponents of the use of property

taxes to finance public services cite the stability of revenue, ease of

administration, and local control as the principal advantages. Critics of

the property tax point out that tax assessments frequently bear no rela-

tion to a landowner's ability to pay, In many cases this results in eco-

nomic hardships and an inequitable distribution of the tax burden.1


J. Walter Milon is an assistant professor in the Food and Resource
Economics Department, University of Florida; Kenneth C. Clayton is a former
assistant professor, now Acting Branch Chief, Food and Agricultural Policy,
National Economics Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture; Gerald F.
Graham is a former research assistant, now a staff analyst, Ways and Means
Committee, Florida Senate.

The term 'tax burden' is defined as the percent of income paid in
taxes as specified by statute. A closely related term 'tax incidence' re-
fprs to the final liability for a tax and is determined by the type of
tax imposed and the market structure. For example, when taxes are levied
oi factors of production such as the property tax on land or the income tax
on earnings it is difficult to pass the liability on to others because the
markets for these factors are generally competitive. On the other hand,
product market taxes such as sales or excise taxes can usually be passed
on to the final consumer even though the producer may bear statutory lia-
bility for the tax. The reader who is not familiar with the terminology
of public finance should consult a standard textbook such as The Economics
of State and Local Government by Werner Z, Hirsch, New York; McGraw-Hill
(1970) pp. 49-72.







Agricultural landowners are particularly vulnerable to the property

tax's inequities. Farmers may pay a Oisproportionate amount of property

tax compared to other groups because income from farming is low relative

to the amount of land required and farmers use proportionally less of the

public services provided from tax revenues. The potential for inequity

exists because the market price of farmland is frequently above the price

that would be justified solely on the basis of income earned from agri-

cultural operations. As a result, a property tax levied against the mar-

ket value of farmland places a tax burden on agricultural producers that

may be counterproductive to society's interests.

Concern over an iicnqu.il property tax burden on farm producers has

been strong in recent years. During the past two decades market prices

for farmland in the U.S. increased at nearly twice the rate of the Consumer

Price Index. While farm earnings generally kept pace with land prices [1],

serious hardships were experienced in areas where rapid population growth

and urbanization forced farmland prices to levels that were clearly not

justified on the basis of farm earnings growth. This situation was alarm-

ing not just to farmers who saw the sale of their land as the only escape

from rising taxes but also to community leaders who viewed the conversion

of farmland to urban development as destructive of desirable open spaces

and a prime contributor to 'urban sprawl'.

In order to insulate farmers from the real estate market and to

achieve some degree of land use planning, many state-, have enacted use

value assessment programs to balance the amount of property tax paid with

the ability to pay. These programs typically base farmland taxation on

the income producing potential of the land in its current use, a concept

known as use value taxation. A few states include other provisions such

as deferred taxation and restrictive covenants in a further effort









to prevent the conversion of farmland and open spaces to other types of

development.

A number of factors, however, have limited the success of farmland

retention programs. For example, California's Williamson Act of 1967,

one of the nation's stronger land retention programs, seeks to preserve

prime farmland in areas adjacent to developing urban areas by allowing

agricultural landowners to receive tax relief in exchange for a written

agreement to keep their land in farming for a period of ten years in order to

receive tax relief. Most observers of the Act's consequences have reported

that the legislation has had little impact on the rate of land conversion.

Farmland owners near urban areas view the ten year provision as unduly re-

strictive and, as a result, the rate of farmland conversion continues un-

abated [3].

The California situation highlights a similar problem in many states.

Rapid population growth and a greater desire to own land have caused sub-

stantial increases in the market value of agricultural land, Use value

assessment programs have been instituted to provide tax relief for farmers

and to preserve agricultural land but little successful land retention has

been achieved.

Florida has had a similar problem with conversion of farmland to

urban development. From 1959 to 1974 the number of acres in farmland
2
decreased 13.4 percent, a decline of over two million acres. The State




See [2] for a discussion of these programs.

This statistic can be deceptive if one fails to consider the composition
of this change. During the 1959-1974 period, total acres in cropland increased
from 3,400,922 to 3,721, 831 acres, a 9.44 percent increase. Woodland acres,
however, decreased 56.44 percent from 6,732,710 acres in 1959 to 2,932,880 in
1974.







of Florida employs a use value assessment program to promote equitable

taxation for agricultural landowners and to encourage continued use of the

land for farming. Critics contend that the use value program is simply a

"tax break" for agricultural landowners at the expense of other taxpayers,

and the program does little to encourage more equitable taxation or to

prevent farmland conversion. Proponents of the program argue that agri-

cultural landowners would be taxed disproportionately to other landowners

and the rate of farmland conversion would be significantly greater if use

value assessments were eliminated.

In this report we do not seek to resolve these issues. Instead we

present the results of research on the tax burden of agricultural producers

in Florida's 67 counties during the 1974-1977 period. The first section

of the report is an overview of the use value assessment concept in the

United States and Florida, Next, we present county level statistics on

farm income and farm sector tax burdens for 1974-1977. The tax burdens

that would occur if the use value program were eliminated are also report-

ed. Finally we compare these results with other research on the property

tax burden of Florida landowners and discuss the implications of these

findings. This information should be useful to farm groups, policy makers,

and interested citizens considering the merits of Florida's use value

assessment program.


USE VALUE ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND


Overview


In any discussion of taxation, it is always useful to return to the

famous canons of taxation set forth by Adam Smith in 1776, In discussing

the role of government in financing public services, Smith argued that a








tax should be equitable, certain, convenient, and economical to administer

[5, pp. 307-308]. Certainly not all taxes can meet these objectives, but

in a modern democracy few taxes are tolerated that do not meet the equity

test. Taxes that unduly burden particular groups are labelled 'discrimin-

atory' and a tax that appropriates a larger portion of income from lower

income classes than from higher income classes is deemed 'regressive',

Legislative bodies have generally made considerable efforts to prevent

violations of the equity objective, but other objectives that go beyond

Smith's canons have become increasingly important in tax policy.

In the United States the federal income tax is a classic example.

Originally intended as a revenue source for national defense and adminis-

tration, the income tax has evolved into a major vehicle for attaining

specific social objectives. The first efforts were toward equalization

of income through progressive income taxation. Since then the tax has

been used to promote social objectives as diverse as education, home own-

ership, and energy conservation.

The incorporation of social objectives into tax policy occurred

more slowly at the state level. With respect to agricultural land, one

of the most significant events in this transition occurred in 1955. In

that year the Maryland General Assembly voted to tax agricultural land

on the basis of it's income earning potential rather than the wealth based


An important point of clarification here is the distinction be-
tween an income based tax and a wealth tax. An income tax is levied
against the earning potential of a productive resource such as labor and
capital and is usually measured by the flow of money receipts to the
supplier of the resource. A wealth tax is levied on the estimated cap-
ital value of tangible assets such as land or equipment and are not direct-
ly related to the flow of money receipts. In general the property tax is
considered a wealth tax. A measure of the burden of a wealth tax relates
the amount of tax paid to the income of the tangible asset's owner. This
does not imply that a wealth tax is the same as a tax on income.




-6-


taxation (defined as the market value of the property) that existed for all

other property classes, The legislative measure specifically stated that

special assessment practices for farmland were desirable in order to achieve

equity in taxation and to promote the general public interest in preserving

open spaces [6, p. 207]. Despite the potentially serious problem of vio-

lating equal protection clauses of the federal and state constitutions, by

1977 forty-four states had adopted laws which required use value assessment

for agricultural land [7]. Although the wording of the legislative mandate

varies from state to state, the intent to promote equity and desirable land

use is clear.

Three forms of use value assessment are used in the U.S. Each has

been adapted to meet the particular needs of the state, but there are many

common elements. The most basic is preferential assessment by which tax

levies are based on the land's current use value in farming. The landowner

is usually required to declare that the land will be used for agricultural

purposes for the current tax year and there are no penalties if the land

is converted to some other use at a later date.

The most frequently used form is deferred taxation. Current year

taxes are based on the property's use value as long as it remains in agri-

culture. When the land is shifted to another use, a roll back provision

is invoked. This provision requires payment of all or part of the dif-

ference between taxes paid according to use value and taxes that would

have been paid if the land had been assessed at market value. While the

length of the period for the roll back provision varies by state, the pro-

vision is intended as a deterent to landowners benefitting from use value

assessment while planning conversion of their property to other uses.

Restrictive contracts are 't'e most obligatory form of use valuation.

The contracts provide for assessment according to current use value of




-I-


the land but they require extended commitments from farmland owners to keep

the land in agricultural use (usually ten years). They may also include

quantitative and qualitative restrictions to insure socially desirable land
1
use.

The effectiveness of use value assessment to achieve the objectives

of equity for farmland owners and socially desirable land use depends on

many factors, but three are of prime importance. First, the extent to which

local governments can participate in a use value assessment program depends

upon the capacity to shift the tax burden to non-agricultural property

owners in the tax district or to secure new sources of tax revenue. Since

use value assessment of farmland is assumed to reduce the tax base in a

jurisdiction, either the total revenue collected will decline or the

tax rate must increase to make up the needed revenue. In the first case, the

amount or quality of services provided by local government will be reduced.

In the latter and more likely case of a tax rate increase, a larger portion

of the tax load shifts to other landowners in the jurisdiction. This tax

shift will force other property owners to bear a larger share of the total

tax load.

Second, the amount of disparity between use value and market value

will determine the magnitude of benefits to the farm owner from a use

value assessment program. In tax districts where use value and market value

are nearly the same, the need to rectify intra-district equity problems is

minimal. But, in the case where inter-district inequities occur, the ability

of the local district to remedy these problems is limited. In this case

assistance must come from the state level.

Finally, the type of penalty imposed for conversion of farmland will

affect the landowner's development decisions. The rational landowner will



For a more comprehensive discussion of state use value assessment
programs, see [6].







weight the potential benefits of an alternative use against the cost of

exercising the alternative and decide on a future action. The extent to

which a state can combine significant benefits from use value assessment

with sufficient deterrents to conversion will determine success in achiev-

ing socially desirable land use.

Florida's Use Value Assessment Program

Use value assessment was introduced in Florida with the enactment of

a statutory provision in 1957 that required preferential assessment for

bona fide agricultural operations. This provision was further clarified

and strengthened by the 1959 Legislature. Although neither measure specifi-

cally identifies the objectives of equitable taxation for agricultural

landowners or land use planning, one participant in the development of

that legislation has commented on the 1959 law:1

This act was drawn up to safeguard agricultural lands being
engulfed by the so-called "urban sprawl" in the more populous
areas of the state. ...This measure is truly a land classifi-
cation procedure and hence the term "green belt," but the
classification of land is accompanied by a preferential land
assessment based solely on agricultural use. [9, pp. 11-12].

By this insight into legislative intent, we see that the Florida Legisla-

ture was acting in the spirit of similar reform movements in other states

aimed at reducing the tax burden on farmers while preserving open spaces

that contributed to the general welfare.

Subsequent regulations and definitions put forth by the Florida

Department of Revenue on the application of use value classification and

assessment have attempted to more narrowly define the legal definition of

agricultural land in order to overcome abuses by land developers and


I'!ershow, former staff attorney to the Florida Legislature, pro-
vides an excellent discussion of the development of use value taxation
in Florida in [8][9].







speculators. Certainly the most controversial is a 1976 rule which allow-

ed county property appraisers to revoke an agricultural land classification

if a parcel sells for more than three times the agricultural use value of

the property. Although appeal procedures were specified that would restore

the agricultural classification in special circumstances, retention was not

assured.

In order to understand the problem of providing tax relief to bona

fide farmers while preserving agricultural land, it is useful to consider

the historical record. Since 1950, Florida has been the second most rap-

idly growing state in the nation [10, p. 14]. Population increased from

2,771,305 in 1950 to 8,717,334 in 1977 [11, pp. 6-9]. This threefold

jump in population increased the demand for Florida's land resources and

initiated rapid urbanization of agricultural land. The consequences of

this population growth are apparent. Table 1 presents county level data

for the ratio of the just value of agricultural land to the classified

use value2 in 1977 [12] and the percentage decrease (increase) in acres of

farmland for the period 1959-1974 [4].

The first column shows that the just value of agricultural land through-

out Florida is uniformly greater than the use value. In 53 ot 67 counties,

just value was at least double the use value. Franklin County had the highest

ratio at 8.52 and Gulf the lowest at 1.07. The overall state average just

value was 2.77 times greater than use value.


The just value of land according to Florida Statutes, Section 193.011,
is the full present market value of property in its highest and best use, with
appropriate deductions for financing and selling fees associated with a market
sale.
The classified use value is based on the current use of the land ir-
respective of development potential or competing land use demands. Agri-
cultural use values are determined by each county appraiser on the basis of
seven criteria set out in Section 193.461 (6) (a), Florida Statutes.







TABLE 1: 1977 Just Value to Use Value Ratios and Percentage Change
in Acres of Farmlands, 1959-1974, Florida Counties

County Ratio of Just Value Percentage Change in Acres
to Use Value, 1977 of Farmland, 1959-1974

ALACHUA 2.96 -36.5 %
BAKER 4.75 1.9
BAY 4.26 -40.7
BRADFORD 3.30 -21.2
BREVARD 2.76 1.4
BROWARD 4.97 -42.8
CALHOUN 2.93 -20.2
CHARLOTTE 1.94 -27.1
CITRUS 2.49 -14.2
CLAY 4.10 4.9
COLLIER 2.87 -14.2
COLUMBIA 2.79 -10.6
DADE 3.53 -40.6
DESOTO 3.71 4.7
DIXIE 4.18 -42.5
DUVAL 6.22 16.0
ESCAMBIA 5.59 -34.0
FLAGLER 3.99 -51.0
FRANKLIN 8.52 -98.4
GADSDEN 2.53 -32.5
GILCHRIST 4.80 4.5
GCAI)DS 4,02 64.7
;Ul' 1.01 7 97.7
IIAMHIITON /i. 15 -.1 /.
IIARI)E .J3.06 4.7
IENDRY 3.34 2.9
SHERNANDO 2.89 -29.5
HIGHLANDS 1.56 5.3
HILLSBOROUGH 3.81 -54.0
HOLMES 2.97 -25.5
INDIAN RIVER 1.71 6.7
JACKSON 2.79 -25.0
JEFFERSON 3.36 -25.1
LAFAYETTE 1.97 -24.2
LAKE 1.48 6.3
LEE 3.64 -11.1
LEON 6.63 -34.3
LEVY 2.16 12.8
LIBERTY 1.71 -96.4
MADISON 1.45 32.8
MANATEE 4.03 47.8
MARION 3.17 106.1
MARTIN 1.86 71.2
MONROE 1.88 -98.9
NASSAU 2.28 -83.7
OKALOOSA 2.02 -89.3
OKEECHOBEE 2.39 2.1
ORANGE 4.46 -26.4
OSCEOLA 2.93 6.9
PAL!I BEACH 2.11 39.2
PAsCO 2.35 1.3
PINELLAS 2.80 -72.9
POLK 1.59 -24.9
PUTNAM 3.71 -23.9
ST. JOHNS 3.03 -54.8
ST. LUCIE 2.08 8.0
SANTA ROSA 1.52 -13.9
SARASOTA 5.23 32.6
SEMINOLE 4.42 .-70.7
SUMTER 3.'9 6.0
SUWANNEE 2.24 -23.0
TAYLOR 1.63 -70.5
UNION 4.72 -57.0
VOLUSIA 3.71 -29.4
WAKULLA 2.15 -60.1
WALTON 1.63 5.6
WAStHINGTON 3.33 -26.3

STATE AVERAGE 2.77 -13.4

Source; See Appendix A







-11-


The second column in Table 1 shows the percentage change in acres

of farmland during the 1959-1974 period. In 51 of the counties, acres in

farmland decreased and the statewide average was a 13.4 percent decline.
./
Those counties in which farmland acreage increased were located mostly in

the northern, more rural, part of the State.


PROPERTY TAX BURDEN ON FARM PROPRIETORS

Prior to 1973, assessment practices in Florida varied widely and

comparisons between counties were difficult, if not impossible. However,

the 1973 Legislature passed the Property Assessment and Administration

and Finance Law (Section 194.073, Florida Statutes) which required uniform

assessment practices throughout Florida and reporting of complete assessment

data to the Department of Revenue in Tallahassee. Thus, beginning with

the 1974 tax rolls, researchers interested in property tax issues were pro-

vided with a more uniform set of tax data that were more consistent with

state assessment practices.1

Determination of the tax burden on Florida agricultural producers has

been hindered by the lack of income data for farm proprietors. Since Florida

does not have an income tax, income statistics were not available for farm

producers on a county level basis. This report utilized previous-

ly unpublished data on county level farm income from the U.S. Department




It should be noted that some counties did not fully comply with
the new law until legal issues were decided in the courts. There is still
some controversy over assessment rolls in particular counties and it would
be naive to assume that all counties fully complied with state regulations.







of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. The series is used to report

state and county personal income by source. Due to reporting delays, the

1977 data were the latest available to the authors.

In order to assess the impact of Florida's use value assessment pro-

gram on the tax burden of agricultural landowners, it is useful to first

examine recent trends in Florida agricultural land markets. Table 2 present

the assessed just value per acre of agricultural land for Florida counties
2
during 1974-1977 period. (Data sources and calculation procedures for all

tables are given in Appendices A and B). All but six counties experienced

increases in just value per acre with the largest increase occurring in

Hillsbourough County. The large jumps or declines in some counties reflect

the reassessment of agricultural lands that resulted from the move toward

uniform assessment throughout the state. The average increase over the four

year period for the 49 counties reporting a complete 1974-1977 series was

32.0 percent.

The trend in use value assessment per acre of agricultural land by

county for the 1974-1977 period is reported in Table 3, All but nine coun-

ties show an increase in the use value of agricultural land. For the 49

counties reporting a complete series for 1974-1977, the average increase

was 18.9 percent. Once again, large changes in the use value assessment

are attributable to tax roll adjustments to comply with the uniform assess-

ment requirement. It is important to note that the just value assessment

of agricultural land has been increasing more rapidly than the taxable use


Income is defined as the sum of total cash receipts, other income,
and inventory changes minua total production expenses including deprecia-
tion, interest, and taxes, In tax incidence studies this measure is called
'current income'. Some analysts have argued for a measure based on income
received over a number of years, a concept known as 'permanent income',
This report utilizes only the former measure.
2Due to reporting omissions in the data series, Franklin and Monroe
counties are not considered in this analysis.






TABLE 2: Just Value Per Acre of Agricultural Land by County,
1974-1977 (JVPA)*


County

ALACHUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUMBIA
DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLAGLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLSBOROUGH
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON ,
LAFAYETTE
LAKE
LEE
LEON
LEVY
LIBERTY
MADISON
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
MONROE
NASSAU
OKALOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
OSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
SPOLK
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS
ST. LUCIE
SANTAROSA
SARASOTA
SEMINOLE
SSUMTER
SUWANNEE
TAYLOR
UNION
VOLUSIA
WAKULLA
WALTON
WASHINGTON


Just Value Per Acre ($)


STATE AVERAGE $L088.0
NO. of counties
reporting 49
* See Appendix B for


$1077.8

53


$1220

64


calculation procedure


1974 1975
$ 450.6 $ 476.7

5575.3 5492.8
1596.6 1614.5
485.6
5989.1 6812.2
1434.1 1132.4
402.4 577.7
256.5
1005.6 1021.4
294.8 211.2
855.5 862.3
5056.6
-933.5

1471.8 1509.9

984.7 997.6

-893.3'
1185.1
356.3 333.8
698.7 293.7

513.4 544.0
388.6 391.5
580.0 886.1
408.3 433.9
329.2

536.3
504.3 505.3
865.6 1031.1
607.7 612.7
1284.6 1286.2
613.8 629.0
2463.6 2606.0
188.7 200.1
1011.0 1020.5
366.6 367.4
700.0 710.0
299.1 631.5
925.9

1233.3
568.7
455.9 448.9
1995.3
315.1 301.8
1500.9 2815.4
767.9 757.9
1592.0
493.7 526.3
434.7 535.5
2857.7 2926.2
825.6 832.3
554.0 583.0
676.2 700.4
562.1 1166.8
724.7 760.7
349.4 359.9

640.5 653.3
1175.9 1195.5

521.4
956.5 885.4


1976
$ 505
3043
5932
1620
617
7520
1136
580
254
1018
212
867
4607
788
1201
1574
1946
1022

871
1194
394
300
967
514
395
943
441
1445

557
506
1026
616
1293
663
2708
203
1023
367
699
675
1005

1346
550
448
2262
332
2762
798
1690
544
778
2975
824
626
705
1438
789
367
524
687
1201
1971
587
636


1977
$ 539
3377
6068
1639
575
8304
1088
553
368
1010
361
895
4822
837
1170
2135
1931
1011

882
1168
393
304
969
894
394
970
451
1447
963
807
530
1056
620
1284
703
2674
391
1036
387
708
702
1308

1481
538
459
2300
348
2652
790
1884
541
927
2965
931
439
695
1765
811
615
525
1189
1260
1879
603
1252

$1301

65


% Change
019.67%

008.84
002.65
018.42
038.65
-024.15
037.34

000.44
022.62
004.62
-004.65


045.06

002.70



010.17
-056.48

074.22
001.39
067.33
S010.35
339.45


005.04
021.95
002.05
-000.06
014.47
008.55
.107.32
002.49
005.45
001.09
134.52



-005.33
000.64

010.42
076.72
002.89
018.35
009.55
113.30
003.76
012.75
-020.81
002.78
214.01
011.86
075.88

085.66
007.19


030.94

32.0%

49




-14-


TABLE 3: Use Value Per Acre of Agricultural Land by County, 1974-1977
(AVPA)*


County


ALACIIUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUMBIA
DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLACLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLSBOROUGH
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
LAFAYETTE
LAKE
LEE
LEON
LEVY
LIBERTY
MADISON
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
MONROE
NASSAU
OKALOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
OSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
"'POLK
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS
ST. LUCIE
SANTAROSA
SARASOTA
SEMINOLE
SUMTER
SUWANNEE
TAYLOR
UNION
VOLUSIA
WAKULLA
WALTON
WASHINGTON

STATE AVERAGE


Use Value Per Acre ($)


1974

$ 346.9

1424.8
457.5
167.2
794.4
500.0
144.9

235.6
83.1
333.0
1299.5


401.9.

247.5



91.9
232.2

258.2
112.3
322.0
256.9
285.2


168.6
267.0
304.7
863.5
151.1
367.1
128.1
597.0
234.4
163.9.
124.8



250.6
191.5

104.1
949.4
311.1
573.4
334.0
140.6
1158.4
366.7
403.7
452.6
205.7
202.2
167.5

187.4
418.0


194.2

$362.8


--


II


NO. of counties
r.p,-rc ing 49 53
* See Applndix jB tor clcult'ojl i pri.Ufurie


64 65 49


1975

$ 156.7

1342.6
469.6

1575.9
407.7
281.0
118.3
242.1
109.5
306.1

237.7

318.5

245.3

396.8
204.9
78.4
292.7

275.5
114.2
300.2
277.4


409.0
170.0
306.0
308.7
866.8
160.5
403.4
128.1
600.9
241.5
153.7
193.7
655.3

526.4

190.6
341.0
100.0
,1255.9
300.1

339.0
209.8
998.2
375.1
433.2
191.2
263.3.
194.9
175.4

195.0
317.5

316.7
202.0

$363.7


1976

$ 163.9
643.4
1410.8
475.7
193.3
1701.8
387.3
,310.9
116.6
243.6
120.8
311.7
1197.5
217.9
227.4
318.8
335.5
257.2

347.6
211.1
94.9
284.3
209.1
276.3
117.7
333.4
282.8
358.7

428.8
175.0
308.5
310.3
873.5
177.4
410.0
130.4
601.8
246.5
165.6
209.7
697.5

583.5
268.2
190.4
510.7
118.4
1302.5
329.4
587.3
341.4
216.9
985.1
409.2
473.6
170.9
308.0
199.0
181.5
322.2
198.8
324.2
849.9
354.6
S 192.9

$ 395.4


1977

$ 182.0
709.9
1421.7
496.5
207.9
1668.8
370.2
284.7
147.2
246.2
125.9
320.0
1365.0
225.1
279.7
342.9
345.2
253.4

348.1
243.1
97.6
282.5
211.6
292.6
118.0
335.6
289.5
379.5
324.3
470.9
189.9
313.8
314.9
868.0
193.1
403.6
181.0
606.4
266.1
175.6
221.2
701.7

648.4
266.1
191.7
516.1
118.7
1259.9
336.2
673.2
340.2
249.7
978.3
447.7
288.6
133.0
399.7
208.3
273.8
322.1
251.7
339.7
872.8
369.5
376.5

$ 410.5


% Change

023.89%

-000.22
008,52
024.30
110.06
-025.96
096.47

004.50
051.42
-003.91
005.04


-014.68

002.40



006.19
021.63

013.31
005.10
004.22
012.68
033.07


012.63
017.53
003.33
000.51
027.85
009.96
041.31
001.58
013.52
007.11
077.29
.-


006.18
000.15

014.04
032.71
008.06
017.40
001.86
077.63
-015.55
022.09
-028.53
-070.63
094.29
003.02
063.44

034.33
-018.75


093.84

18.9%




-15-


value, a trend that is opposite that of other property classes.

Since a landowner's tax bill is determined by the assessed value of

his property and the county millage rate, use value assessment has benefit-

ted agricultural landowner's in two ways. First, use value assessment

lowers the farmland owner's tax bill from that which would occur under just

value assessment. Assuming that the county's revenue needs are constant,

this results in a shift of a part of the tax load to non-agricultural land-

owners through higher county millage rates. This shift is limited by the

county millage cap. Second, on average, the portion of the total tax load

paid by agricultural landowners becomes progressively lower than would

occur under just valuation since the economic factors determining the mar-

ket value of farmland are stronger than the income producing potential of

the land in agriculture. This implies a progressively larger shift of the

county tax load to non-agricultural landowners over time.

The tax paid per acre of agricultural land under use value assessment

is reported in Table 4. For the 48 counties reporting a complete data set

for the 1974-1977 period, only 5 counties showed a decrease. The average

change for the 48 counties was 61.3 percent, indicating that county mill-

age rates were increasing more rapidly than the 18.9 percent increase in

agricultural use value (Table 3).

One should also note the difference between taxes paid per acre

across counties. Agricultural producers in the more populous counties

of the state such as Broward, Dade, Palm Beach, and Pinellas pay signifi-

cantly higher taxes per acre than those in the more rural areas such as

Alachua, Calhoun, Hendry, or Sumter. This reflects the types of crops

grown in each area and the proximity to urban markets. In situations where

the same agricultural product is produced in both the urban and rural areas






TABLE 4: Tax Paid Per Acre of Farmland by County under Use Value
Assessment, 1974 1977 (ATPA)*

Tax Paid per Acre with Use Value


County


1974


1975


1976


1977


% Char


ALACHUA $ .85 $ 1.09 $ 1.31 $ 1.32 055.2!
BAKER 5.09 5.02 -
BAY 7.25 7.63 10.02 10.51 044.9;
BRADFORD 2.16 1.93 2.07 2.16 000.0:
BREVARD 1.12 1.53 1.57 039.4(
BROWARD 2.02 5.18 6.49 6.08 200.84
CALHOUN 1.16 2.23 2.53 2.64 126.8]
CHARLOTTE .61 1.19 2.18 2.15 251.7(
CITRUS .81 .87 .78 -
CLAY .78 .82 1.10 1.13 044.21
COLLIER .21 .44 .64 .67 214.1
COLUMBIA 1.51 1.30 1.37 1.81 019.7S
DADE 13.50 9.31 10.89 -019.33
DESOTO 1.84 1.40 1.63 -
DIXIE 1.72 1.93
DUVAL 2,79 2.69 .
ESCAMBIA 2.15 3.01 -
FLAGLER .35 .56 .57 .60 071.58
S FRANKLIN -
GADSDEN 20.37 2.82 .29
GILCHRIST .75 1.14 1.19 -
GLADES .23. .20 .33 .42 080.26
GULF 1.05 1.26 1.31 1.68 061.27
HAMILTON 1.08 1.19 -
HARDEE 1.30 1.25 1.16 .87 -032.89
HENDRY .39 .57 .65 .84 115.14
HERNANDO 2.01 1.82 2.18 1.85 -008.00
HIGHLANDS .88 1.01 1.41 1.40 058.74
HILLSBOROUGH 2.16' 2.66 2.90 034.41
HOLMES 2.45-
INDIAN RIVER 1.67 1.76 1.94 -
JACKSON .75 .80 .90 .96 028.26
JEFFERSON .76 1.17 1.13 1.22 059.67
LAFAYETTE .73 .85 .84 .87 019.57
LAKE 2.14 2.23 3.29 3.45 060.63
LEE .78 .08 1.01 1.39 078.84
LEON 1.46 1.55 1.68 1.64 011.69
LEVY .78 .80 .84 1.02 029.72
LIBERTY 1.15 1.13 1.90 2.06 080.01
MADISON .72 1.20 1.11 1.02 041.23
MANATEE .86 .96 1.12 1.12 030.14
MARION .29 .38 .44 .74 155.13
MARTIN 2.62 3.32 3.55 -
MONROB -
NASSAU 2.02 2.59 2.96
OKALOOSA .90 1.63 081.23
OKEECHOBEE .81 .79 1.10 1.03 027.53
ORANGE 1.96 3.35 3.51
OSCEOLA .31 .59 .69 .63 107.65
PALM BEACH 4.67 7.24 8.78 7.70 064.90
PASCO 1.77 1.82 -2.47 2.49 040.50
PINELLAS 2.29 3.29 3.81 066.20
POLK 1.68 1.69 1.69 '1.70 001.21
PUTNAM 1.26 1.57 1.74 1.87 047.80
ST. JOHNS 3.38 4.25 4.94 5.18 053.06
ST. LUCIE 1.41 1.88 2.06 1.65 017.68
SANTAROSA .79 .53 .50 .39 -051.24
SARASOTA 1.72 .76 .72 .58 -066.29
SEMINOLE 1.26 1.27. 1.68 2.26 078.55
SUMTER .50 .45 .77 .76 051.46
SUWANNEE 1.04 1.20 1.39 1.81 073.42
TAYLOR 1.81 1.81 -
UNION .69 .08 1.16 1.81 161.12
VOLUSIA 1.60 1.33 1.84 1.84 015.30
WAKULLA 5.44 6.34 -
WALTON .85 1.64 1.89
WASHINGTON .87 .86 1.13 2.78 219.54

STATE AVERAGE $ 1.60 $ 1.90 $ 2.19 $ 2.29 61.3%
NO. of countiess
reporting 48 52 63 65 48
SSee Appendix b for calculation procedure


II


nge

9%

5
3
6

1
6



9
1




-1I-


of the State, the ability of urban producers to remain competitive with

producers from lower tax counties will influence their decision to remain

in agriculture in the long run.

The benefits of use value assessment to agricultural producers state-

wide is readily apparent when one considers the tax load that would occur

with taxation based on the just value of agricultural land. Table 5 pre-

sents the tax per acre of agricultural land with a just value taxation

basis for the 1974-1977 period. For this analysis total county property

tax revenue and the millage rate were held at their actual levels. In this

situation, only 4 counties would have experienced a decrease over the per-

iod and the average increase in tax per acre for the 48 counties would have

been 73.24 percent instead of the 61,3 percent increase under use value

assessment (Table 4). Once again, a large difference exists between tax

paid per acre in the major urban counties versus the rural areas.

A comparison of Tables 4 and 5 reveals that use value assessment re-

duces the tax paid per acre in all counties. In counties where the just-

use value ratio is high and agricultural land is a relatively large por-

tion of the total county tax base (e.g., Leon, Orange), the tax paid under

use value assessment may be less than one-third the tax that would occur

wich just value taxation, In counties with low just-use value ratios

(e.g. Lake, Polk), the tax savings are not as great.

Table 6 indicates the extent to which use value assessment has

insulated agricultural landowners from the property tax effects of land

price increases. The table presents the differential increase in tax paid

per acre under a just value tax system instead of a use value system dur-

ing the 1974-1977 period, A positive value indicates that the tax paid

under a just value system would be increasing more rapidly than the tax




-18-


TABLE 5: Tax Paid Per Acre of Farmland by County under JustValue
Assessment, 1974 1977 (JTPA)*


County

ALACHUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLULMBIA
DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLACLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
HARDEE
HENRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HIlLLS.OR.OUCH
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON ,
LAFAYETTE
LAKE
LEE
LEON
LEVY
LIBERTY
MADISON
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
MONROE
NASSAU
OKALOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
OSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
POLK
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS
ST. LUCIE
SANTA ROSA
SARASOTA
SEMINOLE
SUMTER
SUWANNEE
TAYLOR
UNION
VOLUSIA
WAKULLA
WALTON
WASHINGTON

STATE AVERAGE
NO. of counties
r porch inr


1974
$ 2.35

25.09
5.06
3.13
14.89
1.85
1.59

2.71
.73
2.78
51.61
-



.92



.37
2.43

1.71
.65
3.33
1.22
2.48


1.32
1.16
.84
2.79
3.05
7.97
1.02
1.49
.87
3.10
.61



1.92
1.18

.69
7.00
3.72
6.35
2.37
3.26
7.38
2.64
1.06
2.52
3.36
1.12
1.60

1.08
4.23


2.22

$ 4.21

48


per Acre with Just Value


--~-


SSee Appendix B tor calculation procedure.


c


Tax Paid
1975
$ 3.00

28.07
4.54

21.94
3.84
2.29
1.68
2.88
.84
2.62

3.06



1.74

10.27
1.48
.36
1.26

1.63
1.02
4.66
1.40


2.13
1.43
1.68
.99
2.92
.30
8.12
1.08
1.50
1.43
3.79
1.01
3.50

4.23

1.19
10.61
1.36
14.37
4.05

2.50
3.39
10.93
3.58
.70
2.67
5.40.
1.13
1.86

.13
4.70

1.26
2.17

$ 3.93

52


1976
$ 3.66
8.94
37.85
4.92
4.65
28.05
4.53
3.83
1.83
3.90
1.11
2.78
35.34
2.53
2.88
13.44
11.54
1.76

5.24
2.22
.58
1.37
2.80
1.67
1.20
5.40
1.95
9.98

2.23
1.63
1.64
1.00
4.35.
3.67
8.99
1.14
2.52
1.33
4.13
1.17
4.51

5.35

1.70
13.74
1.48
16.69
5.33
9.44
2.57
4.88
13.19
3.64
.65
2.83
7.49
1.93
2.15
2.50
1.98
6.40
10.30
2.42
2.55

$ 5.91

63


1977
$ 3.58
9.37
40.67
5.07
4.16
29.57
4.76
3.95
1.87
3.98
1.85
3.80
37.96
2.92
3.09
16.28
15.64
1.85

.56
2.24
S.74
1.79
3.07
1.69
1.59
4.76
1.96
10.38
3.77
3.10
1.78
1.81
1.06
4.56
4.93
8.89
1.67
2.78
1.23
3.98
1.96
5.92

6.03
3.18
1.66
14.50
1.40
14.81
5.26
10.63
2.58
5.50
13.96
3.10
.58
2.91
9.45
1.92
2.79
2.52
3.32
6.47
11.51
2.77
5.52

$ 6.65

65


% Change
052.68%

062.10
000.30
033.06
098.56
157.06
148.45

046.44
154.83
036.57
-026.44




100.28



100.43
-026.07

-001.12
143.81
043.12
060.64
318.25


035.16
056.60
026.22
063.57
061.38
011.62
063.23
086.35
041.98
028.62
219.69



065.38
040.49

102.70
111.65
041.26
067.57
009.08
068.69
089.17
017.70
-045.48
015.33
180.99
071.19
074.12

206.56
053.04


149.11

73.24%

48




-19-


Difference between Percentage Change in Tax Paid Per Acre by
County with Just Value Base instead of Use Value Base, 1974-197-7


County


Difference between %
with Just Value Base


ALACHUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CHARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUMBIA
DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLAGLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF.
HAM ILTON
HARDEE
HENDRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLSBOROUGH
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
LAFAYETTE
LAKE
LEE
LEON
LEVY
LIBERTY
MADISON
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
MONROE
NASSAU
OKALOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
OSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
POLK ;
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS
ST. LUCIE
SANTA ROSA
SARASOTA
SEMINOLE
SSUMTER
SUWANNEE
TAYLOR
UNION
VOLUSIA
WAKULLA
WALTON
WASHINGTON


Chage n ax er cr


Change in Tax Per Acre
instead of Use Value Base

-003.06

017.15
000.27
-006.40
-102.27
030.25
-103.31

002.23
-059.28
016.78
-007.12




028.71



S020.17
-087.35

031.77
028.67
051.12
001.90
283.84


006.90
-003.07
006.65
002.94
-017.46
-000.07
033.51
006.34
000.75
-001.52
064.57


-015.86
012.95

-004.95
046.75
000.76
001.37
007.87
020.88
036.11
000.03
005.76
081.62
102.45
019.73
000.70

045.44
037.74


-069.86

6.64%

48


ESTATE AVERAGE
NO. of counties
reporting


TABLE 6:




-20-


paid under the existing use value system. In 34 of the 48 counties the

just value tax paid would have increased faster than the tax paid based

on use value. This indicates that in these counties, more of the tax

load is shifting to non-agricultural landowners under the existing use

value system than would occur with a just value system. In the 14 counties

showing a negative sign, agricultural landowners' share of the total

county tax load was increasing more rapidly over the 1974-1977 period with

the use value system than would have occurred with a just value system.

This reflects, in part, large increases in the use value of agricultural

land relative to the just value due to revised estimates of the income

earning potential of a county's farmland or a change in a county appraiser's

assessment practices to comply with the push for statewide assessment uni-

formity. This type of adjustment is particularly evident in the -103.31

percent change for Charlotte County where the just value per acre of farm-

land increased 37.34 percent during the 1974-1977 period (Table 2) while

the use value per acre increased 96.47 percent (Table 3).

Of course, while these statistics on just-use value ratios and rela-

tive differences in tax paid between counties are interesting, the crucial

issue for public policy is the effectiveness of the use value assessment

program in reducing the tax burden on agricultural producers. To address

this issue, we turn now to the farm income data.

Table 7 presents estimates of net farm proprietor's income by county

for the 1974-1977 period. Net income is defined as gross returns from

agricultural operations less production expenses, wages, taxes, and in-

terest expense.

The most important point to note is that net farm proprietor's

income decreased in 37 of 66 counties over the 1974-1977 period. While




-21-


TABLE 7: Net Farm Proprietor's Income by County, 1974-1977.

Net Farm Income (000's)
County 1974 1975 1976 1977 % Change

ALACHIV $ 6946 6915 6489 7211 3.82%
BAKER 226 1506 2068 1525 574.78
BAY 555 619 551 329 40.72
BRADFORD .- 85 742 1072 526 718.82
BREVARD 6142 6086 5404 6293 2.46
BROWARD 6278 10401 11288 10331 64.56
CALHOUN 2389 4181 3279 2240 6.24
CHARLOTTE 1030 837 671 715 30.58
CITRUS 801 833 798 764 4.62
CLAY 5777 5792 6025 5161 10.66
COLLIER 12795 15278 15411 14526 13.53
COLUMBIA 4772 4550 4109 3464 27.41
DADE 28967 40169 39035 35772 23.49
DESOTO 2845 2749 1457 1560 45.17
DIXIE 553 325 436 21.16
DUVAL 762 2705 3359 2240 193.96
ESCAMBIA 7274 8735 2427 2527 65.26
FLAGLER 2928 2973 2372 1592 45.63
FRANKLIN -
GADSDEN 7248 5976 8011 4206 41.97
GILCHRIST 4108 4300 3238 3914 4.72
GLADES 6921 5363 4005 2980 56.94
GULF 213 430 r 676 -
.HAMILTON 3799 3885 585 1567 58.75
HARDEE 15104 15420 13811 15561 3.03
HENDRY 51458 46729 30929 21113 58.97
HERNANDO 2355 5328 5111 4346 84.54
HIGHLANDS 11712_ 11402 9336 10245 12.53
HILLSBOROUGH 24033 32470 31702 30470 26.78
HOLMES 2919 3608 5427 3021 3.49
INDIAN RIVER 7002 6736 4257 5606 -:19.94
JACKSON ,9972 11862 7913 3146 68.45
JEFFERSON 2935 4000 5425 3592 22.39
LAFAYETTE 2233 2776 3703 2848 27.54
LAKE 38092 42853 35575 40598 6.57
LEE 2393 6493 6672 5999 150.69.
LEON 504 294 1771 379 24.80
LEVY 2821 2036 2294 1665 40.98
LIBERTY 35 544 378 273 680.00
MADISON 4423 4046 3469 3010 31.95
SMANATEE 14708 19291 19834 19257 30.93
MARION 1677 3078 1071 324 -119.32
MARTIN 4453 6235 4816 5130 15.20
MONROE -
NASSAU 1150 1940 2185 1269 10.35
OKALOOSA 4786 5330 6729 4634 3.18
OKEECHOBEE 4333 4404 3618 2430 43.92
ORANGE 28241 32112 42342 43692 54.71
OSCEOLA 6056 3720 2923 3323 45.13
PALM BEACH 65010 64432 47244 32489 50.02
PASCO 8060 9873 8172 8620 6.95
PINELLAS 1222 2250 2275 2276 86.25
POLK 50787 54058 44740 51010 .44
PUTNAM 4967 5897 5623, 4861 2.13
ST. JOHNS 7210 8218 6594 3862 46.50
ST. LUCIE 12006 11946 9329 11008 8.31
SANTA ROSA 7462 6048 5115 1817 75.65
SARASOTA 2049 1637 1508 1394 31.97
SEMINOLE 4501 6978 7372 7202 61.01
SUMTER 5619 6164 6437 6410 14.08
SUWANNEE 9091 8633 10060 7681 15.51
TAYLOR 826 617 640 628 23.97
UNION 5453 6409 7350 6904 26.61
VOLUSIA 6100 12380 12662 12040 97.38
WAKULLA 399 463 1189 607 52.13
WALTON 3837 3380 5175 1742 54.60
WASHINGTON 3479 2127 5048 3067 11.84

STATE AVERAGE $ 8528 $ 9681 $ 8585 $ 7887 2.82%
NO. of counties
reporting 65 65 65 64 64

Source: See Appendix A




-22-


total state level farm income decreased 8.9 percent, producers in counties

such as Hendry, Manatee, and Palm Beach experienced sharp declines in net

income over the period. Most counties exhibited a volatile pattern of

income reflecting the vagaries of the business cycle and demand-supply

conditions unique to particular crops and commodities.

Table 8 presents net farm proprietor's income per average farm by

county for the 1974-1977 period. While the percentage change figures in

the last column are identical to those in Table 7, the table highlights

the differences between counties in terms of the number of agricultural

operations and the income earning potential of those operations.

Table 9 presents estimates of the tax burden on Florida agricultural

producers by county for the 1974-1977 period. Tax burden is computed by

dividing tax paid by adjusted net income. In only ten of the 48 counties

did the tax paid as a percent of income decline during the period. For

these same 48 counties, the percentage increase in tax burden over the four

year period was 78.7 percent.

One should note that the tax burden varies significantly across

counties. For example, in 1977 the a'.?,rage tax burden for the 65 counties

reported was 9.09 percent-yet the individual burdens ranged from a high of

54.31 percent in Marion County to a low of .74 percent in Gadsden County.

This is a strong reflection of the fact that farm income depends on the

returns from many different crops and products, many of which are indepen-

dent of one another. While producers in Central Florida may be experienc-

ing good returns from the citrus crop, producers in North Florida may be

suffering losses on the corn and peanut crops. The fact that existing



SAdjusted net income is defined as net farm income plus property
taxes paid. This adjustment was made because it is customary in tax inci-
dence studies to compute tax burden on income before taxes are deducted.








TABLE 8: Net Farm Proprietor's Income Per Average Farm by County,
1974-1977.


County


1974


income per Average Farm
1975 1976 1977


% Change


ALACIIUA
BAKER
BAY
BRADFORD
BREVARD
BROWARD
CALHOUN
CIIARLOTTE
CITRUS
CLAY
COLLIER
COLUMBIA
DADE
DESOTO
DIXIE
DUVAL
ESCAMBIA
FLAGLER
FRANKLIN
GADSDEN
GILCHRIST
GLADES
GULF
HAMILTON
SHARDEE
HENDRY
HERNANDO
HIGHLANDS
HILLSBOROUGH
HOLMES
INDIAN RIVER
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
SLAFAYETTE
SLAKE
LEE
LEON
LEVY
LIBERTY
MADISON
MANATEE
MARION
MARTIN
MONROE
NASSAU
OKALOOSA
OKEECHOBEE
ORANGE
OSCEOLA
PALM BEACH
PASCO
PINELLAS
POLK
PUTNAM
ST. JOHNS
ST. LUCIE
SANTA ROSA
SARASOTA
SEMINOLE
SUMMER
SUWANNEE
TAYLOR
UNION
VOLUSIA
WAKULLA
WALTON
WASHINGTON


$ 7591
1076
7400
-- 272
13068
19024
11216
5255
3833
29335
88241
8143
33219
4202
6506
2566
14725
38526

16817
12373
49085
- 6871
10793
15381
210033
7093
21217
10293
4693
17954
8310
10371
7000
24817
7645
2100
6781
398
6712
23272
1462
22265

5300
11759
16289
25697
16106
131333
8630
5791
21268
11263
44288
27664
14159
9851
11453
9875
8625
4370
26343
7385
5250
9313
8205


PTATE AVERAGE $18813
NO.'of counties
reporting 65
C/tirif/** Ar Brnn d-v' V


$ 7557
7171
8253
2371
12049
31518
19629
4270
3986
29401
105366
7765
46065
4061
3824
S9108
17682
39118

11777
12952
38035
-13817
11037
:15703
190731
16048
20656
13906
5801
17272
9885
14134
8702
27917
20744
1225
4894
6182
6140
30524
2684
31175

8940
13096
16556
39228
9894
130166
10571
10664
22637
13372
50417
27525
11476
7870
17750
10833
8191
3265
30961
14988
6092
8204
5017

$20647

65


$ 7092
9848
7347
3425
11498
34206
15394
3423
3818
30584
106283
7012
44765
2152
4588
11310
4913
31211

18587
9753
28404
-21806
- 1662
14064
126241
15395
16913
13577
8725
10915
6594
19170
11608
23176
21317
7379
5514
4295
5364
31383
934
24080

10069
16533
13602
38528
7774
95442
8749
10782
18735
12751
40454
21495
9706
7250
18758
11313
9545
3386
35507
15329
15645
12561
11906

$18298

65


$ 7881
7262
4387
1681
13389
31306
10516
3648
3656
26198
100179
5911
41023
2304
5129
7542
5115
20947

9759
11789
21135

4452
15846
86176
13090
18560
13049
4857
14374
2622
12593
8928
26448
19166
1579
4002
3102
4568
30471
- 282
25650

5848
11386
9135
39756
8838
65634
9229
10787
21361
11023
23693
25364
3448
6702
18326
11265
7287
3,323
33353
14576
7987
4228
7233

$15780

64


3.82%
574.78
40.72
718.82
2.46
64.56
- 6.24
- 30.58
- 4.62
- 10.66
13.53
- 27.41
23.49
-45.17
- 21.16
193.96
- 65.26
- 45.63

- 41.97
- 4.72
- 56.94

- 58.75
3.03
- 58.97
84.54
- 12.53
26.78
3.49
- 19.94
- 68.45
22.39
27,54
6.57
150.69
-.24.80
- 40.98
-680.00
- 31.95
. 30.93
-119.32
15.20

10.35
3.18
-'43.92
54.71
45.13
50.02
6.95
86.25
.44
2.13
46.50
-8.31
75.65
31.97
60.01
14.08
15.51
23.97
26.61
97.38
52.13
54.60
11.84

2,82%

64


--~LLL--L-L---LLLI~LLLLYYYL~_




-24-


TABLE 9: Property Tax Paid as a Percent of Adjusted Net Farm Income
under Use Value Assessment by County, 1974-1977.

Tax as a Percent of Gross Income
County 1974 1975 1976 1977 % Change


ALACHIUA 3.24% 4.15% 5.24% 4.78% 47.63%
BAKER 9.55 12.37
BAY 19.16 18.28 24.82 36.69 91.49
BRADFORD 486.49 11.40 8.71 16.91 96.52
BREVARD 4.55 6.82 6.05 32.78
BROWARD 1.46 2.25 2.59 2.65 80.62
CALIOUN 2.78 3.04 4.34 6.48 132.70
CHARLOTTE 9.23 19.64 35.77 34.01 268.39
CITRUS 8.92 9.97 9.33
CLAY .1.76 1.85 2.37 2.82 59.69
COLLIER .45. .78 1.12 1.23 174.50
COLUMBIA 4.26 3.87 4.47 6.85 60.57
DADE 3.45 1.80 2.82 33.87
DESOTO 15.80 21.20 22.68-
DIXIE 29.97 30.02
DUVAL 6.99 9.80
ESCANBIA 7.39 9.68
FLACLER .99. 1.56 2.00 3.07 208.95
FRANKLIN -
GADSDEN 29.94 3.62 .74
GILCHIRIST 1.64 3.24 2.81
GLADES 1.82 2.00 4.32 7.22 295.65
C GUI 41. 62 21.23 13.09 -
IIAMILTON 23.84 7.34 -
HARDEE 2.61 : 2.45 .2.54 1.71 34.26
HENDRY .51 .80 1.37 2.57 .413.46
HERNANDO 6.01 2.50 3.10 3.09 48.60
HIGHLANDS 3.20 3.73 6.19 5.66 76.86
IILT. OROIUGH 3.11 2.91 3.29 5,81
HOLMES -' 907 -
INDIA E IVPER 4.37 7.10 6.00 -
JACKSON 2.17 1.94 .3.25 8.25 281.24
JEFFERSON 3.57 4.02 2.87 4.61 29.06
'LAFAYETTE 2.59 2.43' 3.81, 2.43 '6.18
LAKE 1.81 1.67 2.94 2.70 49.36
.EE 3.96 .15 1.88 2.86 27.84
LEON 28.54 41.70 11.38 36.90 .30.62
LEVY 7.40 10.01 9.47 14.93 101.90
LIBERTY 38.72 3.85 8.81 12.73 67.13
MADISON 2.68 4. 7r. 5.11 5.40 101.72
SMANATEE 2.14' 1.83 2.08 2.12 .59
MARION 8.26 5.97 17.48 54.31 46.05
MARTIN 8.35 13.01 13.04 -
MONROE -
NASSAU -5.62 6.33 11.74 -
OKAI.OOSA 1.62 2.98 84.58
OKEECIIOBEE 6.37 6.11 10.01. 13.40 110.34
ORANGE 1.03 1.78 1.81
OSCEOLA 4.19 12.19 16.98 14.19 238.93
PALM BEACH 3.59 5.51 8.79 10.94 204.80
PASCO 6.46 5.48 8.67 8.32 28.76
PINELLAS 2.81. 2.8 2.51 10.49
POLK 2.57 2.44 2.93 2.59 .74
PUTNAM 4.13 4.30 4.99 6.11 47.91
ST, JOHNS 1.90 2.09 3.00 5.24 176.36,
ST. LUCIE 3.73 4.95 6.79 4.73 27.00
SANTA ROSA 1.00 .83, .92 1.98 98.28
SARASOTA 15.60 9.26 9.44 8.39 46.22
SEMIINOLE 1.70 1.11 .1.39 '1.90 11.37
.SUMTER 1.64 1.35 2.17 2.16 32.06
SUWANNEE 2.56 3.08 3.06 5.12 99.87
TAYLOR 24.55 2.93 -
UNION .76 .08 .95 1.56 104.59
VOLUSIA 4.66 1.96 2.63 2.77 40.43
WAKULLA 5.33 11.41 -
WALTON 2.88 3.62 11.38
WASHINCTON 2.00 3.20 1.78 6.88 243.81

STATE AVERAGE 15.9' 6,16% 6.20; 9.09 78.70%
NO. of counties
rL..rt lg 4/8 52 63 64 48
_n _n_.n.- 0n n h ^nrl,,l.^ ^r 1t **









assessment procedures cannot adjust quickly enough to income changes is

clearly reflected in the wide variability of the tax burden in many

counties.

This variability is also evident in the average state tax burden.

Except for 1974 when Bradford County experienced a net loss in income, the

average burden ranged from 6.16 percent in 1975 to 9.09 percent in 1977.

Again the primary cause is a general decline in farm income due to slack

demand and rising production costs. As a result, producers pay a larger

portion of their income despite the decline in their actual ability to pay.

One might wonder what the tax burden on farm propritors would have

been if Florida had not used a use value assessment program. Table 10 pre-

sents estimates of the tax burden on agricultural producers by county for

the 1974-1977 period under the assumption that farm land is taxed at its

just value, A comparison of the last column of Table 10 with the last

column of Table 9 reveals that the tax burden would have increased more

rapidly with a just value base. The average increase would have been 100.92

percent instead of the 78.70 percent increase( with a use value basis.

It is clearly evident from Table 10 that the tax burden would be

higher with a just value assessment system. The average tax burden ranges

from a low of 10.14 percent in 1975 to a high of 18.08 percent in 1977

reflecting the increase in the market value of land during this period.

Once again, considerable variability between counties is evident. For

example, in 1977 the tax burden ranged from a high of 146.49 percent of

adjusted net farm income in Marion County to a low of 1.39 percent in

Gadsden. A quick examination will also reveal that there is considerable

variation within individual counties during the study period.




-26-


TABLE 10: Property Tax Paid as a Percent of Adjusted Net Farm Income
under Just Value Assessment by County, 1974-1977.

Tax as a Percent of Gross Income
County 1974 1975 1976 1977 % Change

ALACHIUA 8.46% 10.62% 13.35% 11.96% 41.44%
BAKER 15.62 20,85 -
BAY 45.07 45.14 55.49 69.17 53.47
BRA\DORD 151.52 23.21 18.49 32.28 78.70
BREVARD 11.72 18.18 14.59 24,51
BROWARD 9.88 8.88 10.30 11,68 18.25
CALIOUN 4,36 .5.12 .7.51 11.11 154.80
CHARLOTTE 20.94 31.93 49.48 48.67 132.40
CITRUS 16.94 18.85 19.90
CLAY "5.88 6.19 7.91 9,29 57.98
COLLIER 1.52 1.47 1.91 '3.36 120.30
COLDUBIA 7.58 7,49 8.69 13.36 76.36
DADE 12.03 6 6,50 7.53 37.39
DESOTO .23.80 32.71 34.42 -
DIXIE 41.74 40.74
DUVAL 26.60 39.70
ESCAhBIA 29.95 35.75
FLACLER 2.60 4.73 5.91 8.96 244.32
FRANKLIN 7
GADSDEN 17.72 6.51 1.39
GILCHRIST r 3.18 6.13 5.17
GLADES 2.86 3.56 7.30 12.04 321.51
SGULF 214.55 : 21.30 13.78 -
HAMILTON .100.05 17.01 -
HARDEE 3.39 3.18 3.62 3.26 3.89
HENDRY .83 1,41 2.50 4.75 470.75
HERNANDO 9.59 6.16 7.34 7,60 r 20.74
HIGHLANDS : 4.36 5,10 8,39 7.72 77.18
HILLSBOROUGH .3.56 10.11 10,85 204.94
HOLMES 13,32 -
INDIAN RIVER 5.50 8,80 9.25
JACKSON ,,'3.74 3.43' 5.72 14.28 281.53
JEFFERSON .5.32 5,64 4.14 6.71 26.08
'LAFAYETTE 2,96 2.81 2.15 3.53 19.33
S LAKE 2.34 2.18 3.84 3.54 51.59
LEE 13.93 .58 6.52 9.43 32.26
LEON 68.19 78.93 40.78 76.10 11.58
LEVY 9.37 13.19 12.47 22.23 137.30
LIBERTY 05.07 5.04 11.40 16.39 63.64
MADISON 3.19 5.62 6.03 6.44 101.64
SMANATEE .7.29 6.83 7.22 7.17 1.64
MARION '16.00 14.70 36.27 146.49 815.82
MARTIN 10.85 16,87 20.00
MONROE- -
NASSAU 11,07 12.27 21.32 -
OKALOOSA 3.39 5.66 66.79
OKEECHOBEE 9.06 8.94 14.60 19.98 120.44
ORANGE 5.33 6.90 7,05 -
OSCEOLA 9.05 24.20 30.54 26.89 196.98
PALM BEACH 5,28 10.36 15.48 19.11 261.68
-PASCO 12.66 11.40 16.98 16.06 26.93
PINELLAS 7.41 6,01 6.71 9.36
POLK 3.58 23.55 4.38 3.88 8.27
PUTNAM 10.01 8.87 12.81 16.09 60.72
ST. JOHNS 4.04 5.20 7,62 12.97 220.71
ST. LUCIE 6.77 ...9.01 11.44 8.53 25.95
SANTA ROSA 1.33 1.09 1.19 2.94 120.28
SARASOTA 21,29 26.36 29.17 31.44 47.67
SEMINOLE 4.41 4,56 5.90 7.49 69.95
SUMTER 3.57 3.57 5.27 5.27 47.43
SUWANNEE 3,87 4.71 4.66 7.67 97.95
TAYLOR 31.02 1.67
UNION 1.19 .12 1.60 2.83 138.11
VOLUSIA 11.40 6,59 8.59 9.08 e 20.43
WAKULLA 1 9.64 18.93 -
WALTON 4.22 5.25 15.82 -
WASHINGTON 4.93 7.66 3.95 12.78 159.24

STATE AVERAGE 12.64% 10,14Z 11.56% 18.08% 100.92%
NO.'of counties
reporting 48 52 63 64 48
Source: See Appendix B




-Z/-


IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS


Proponents of use value assessment programs argue that preferential

treatment of farmland owners is necessary to promote equitable taxation

and desired land use. A property tax system without preferential treat-

ment of agricultural landowners is inequitable because land is a .dispro-

portionately large portion of farmers' input factor mix and residents of

rural areas do not receive local public services such as schools, police

and fire protection in proportion to their land holding. It is also argued

that reduced taxes on agricultural land encourage farmland retention. With-

out preferential treatment, development pressures.would increase land values

and tax liabilities thereby forcing premature conversion of farmland to

urban development or temporary idleness. As a result, agricultural land is

lost. reducing the potential for food production and encouraging urban sprawl

at the expense of aesthetically desirable open spaces and woodlands. The

following subsections of the report examine these arguments in light of the

previously reported statistics.

Comparative Tax Burdens

Determining whether Florida's agricultural producers pay 'too much'

or 'too little' in property taxes is impossible without establishing a

standard for comparison. One measure is to compare the Florida burden to

the nation as a whole. Table 11 presents the percentage of adjusted net

farm proprietor's income paid to the property tax for all U.S. agriculture

during the period 1972-1977. Income data used to construct this measure

are from the same report as the county level income reported in the pre-

ceding section; property tax data are from the U.S, Department of Agri-

culture [13].




-28-


TABLE 11: Property Taxes as a Percentage of Adjusted U.S. Farm
Proprietor's Income, 1972-1977.*


Year Net Proprietor's Property Taxes as a Percent
Income of Adjusted Income
(millions) (%)
1972 $ 17,378 12.41
1973 30,878 7.53
1974 23,852 10.01
1975 22,607 11.21
1976 16,900 15.49

Adjusted income is defined as net farmer proprietor's income plus
property taxes paid.


When compared with the Florida average tax as a percent of adjusted

farm income (Table 9), it is clear that, except for 1974, the Florida aver-

age is consistently below the national average, This is true despite the

fact that taxes levied per acre in Florida are above the national average

[13, pp. 12-13] and property taxes paid as a percent of net income in

Florida is among the highest in the Southeastern states [13, pp. 20-21].

In relation to the national average, Florida's use value assessment pro-

gram helped to reduce the tax burden on the average Florida agricultural

producer.

But, equity considerations by their very nature are relative meas-

ures and tax burden comparisons should be between groups affected by the

same tax system, in this case other Florida residents who pay the property

tax. However, good statistical measures are scarce. The only published

estimate of the property tax burden on Florida residents is from a study

by the staff of the Finance and Taxation Committee, Florida House of Repre-

sentatives [14], Based on the staff's findings [14, p. 49], the weighted

average percent of income paid in property taxes by all Florida residents


1Weights were calculated for this report on the basis of number of
households per income group [14, p, 45,]




-29-


in 1974-75 was 3.16 percent. Thus, relative to other Florida taxpayers,

agricultural landowners pay a higher portion of their income (Table 9) to

the property tax. On this basis, the use value assessment program has

failed to achieve equitable taxation among Florida landowners.

It should be noted that the net farm incomes used to calculate the

tax burden by county for Table 9 do not include income from activities

outside of agriculture. These tax burden estimates overstate the impact

of the property tax since agricultural households do have alternative

sources of income. However, based on rough estimates, these outside earn-

ings are probably less than 10 percent of net proprietor's income and

thus do not measurably change our conclusion.

On the other hand, the property tax burden on agriculture is under-

stated by the estimates in Table 9 because these figures include only

direct payments for property taxes, Property taxes are also paid in the

price of purchased inputs for farm production and farm household consump-

tion. These indirect tax payments should also be counted in the tax burden

calculations, but inadequate data prevent this.

Finally, we must issue a word of caution about interpretation of

these calculations and comparisons. The agricultural tax burden estimates

in this report consider only the direct tax payments defined by statute.

The final burden, more appropriately termed the 'incidence', will depend

on the ability of the landowner to transfer the tax liability to another

through sales of agricultural products. This ability to pass on the tax

liability in product prices is determined by market conditions for the

product. Therefore, a final conclusion about the equity of Florida's


The Bureau of Economic Analysis, U,S. Department of Commerce,
reports other farm income of $40,3 million in 1977 with net farm propri-
etor's income of $504.8 million, This conclusion holds for other years
as well.




-30-


property tax on agricultural land is premature until a careful evaluation

of product markets determines the transferability of the tax.

Similarly, this analysis has not considered the distribution of

benefits received from property taxation. Due to the 'public good' aspects

of many locally funded services and programs, it is difficult to identify

beneficiaries. This information is necessary before a final conclusion

about the incidence of property taxation can be reached.

Conclusion

One of the most striking patterns in population shifts since World

War II has been the steady influx of new residents into Florida. With

this pattern of migration has come increasing urbanization, an increased

demand for land, and more demand for public services to meet the needs of

a diverse population. The inevitable result has been higher land prices

and, in the case of agriculture, land prices that are not justified by the

income producing potential of the land in farm production.

The calculations reported here show that Florida's use value assess-

ment program has reduced the tax burden on agricultural producers that

would exist if all land were taxed on the basis of market value. In com-

parison with the U.S. average tax burden on farm producers, Florida's

agricdlcural tax burden is lower, But, relative to all Florida property

owners, the evidence indicates that Florida farm producers pay a larger

portion of income to the projiecty tax. In additionn there is considerable

variation in the agricultural tax burden between counties and even within

the same county during the study period.

The success of the use value assessment program in delaying or pre-

venting the conversion of agricultural land to other uses cannot be deter-

mined on the basis of available data. The results reported here suggest




-31-



that some of the financial pressures to convert farmland have been reduced

by lowering the carrying costs of farmland, Whether this incentive to

preserve agricultural land will be sufficient in the long run remains to

be seen.







REFERENCES


[1] Stevens, Neil A., "Rising Farmland Prices and Falling Farm
Earnings: Is Agriculture in Trouble?" Federal Reserve Bank of St.Louis
Review, Vol. 60, No. 5 (May 1978): pp. 16-20.

[2] Clayton, Kenneth C. and J. Walter Milon, "Agriculture and The
Property Tax: Theoretical Issues and Empirical Evidence" Food and
Resource Economics Department Staff Paper #121, University of Florida,
(July 1979): pp. 2-13.

[3] Schwartz, S.I., D.E. Hansen, T.C. Foin, "Landowner Benefits
from Use Value Assessment Under the California Land Conservation Act",
American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 58, No. 2 (May 1976).

[4] U.S, Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1974 Census
of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. (June 1977).

[5] Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations, Vol. II, London, Aldine
Press (1968).

[6] Barlowe, R., J.G. Ahl, G. Bachman, "Use Value Assessment
Legislation in the United States" Land Economics, Vol. 49, No. 2,
(May 1973): pp. 206-212.

[7] Coughlin, R.E., D. Berry and T. Plaut, "Differential Assessment
of Real Property as an Incentive to Open Space Preservation and Farmland
Retention" National Tax Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2 (July 1977).

[8] Wershow, James S., "Agricultural Zoning in Florida Its
Implications and Problems," University of Florida Law Review, Vol, 13,
No. 2 (1960).

[9] Wershow, James S. "Ad Valorem Assessments in Florida Whither
Now?"University of Florida Law Review, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Summer 1965).

[10] U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical
Abstract 1978, Washington, D.C. (1978).

[11] Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Florida Statistical
Abstract 78, University of Florida (1978).

[12] State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Florida Ad Valorem
Valuations and Tax Data (1977).

[13] U,S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Farm Real Estate Taxes 1976, RET-17, Washington, D.C. (December 1977).

[14] Finance and Taxation Committee, Florida House of Representatives,
The Burden of Florida Taxes by Income Class: 1974-75, Tallahassee, FL
(June 9, 1978).




APPENDIX A. Data Sources


Variable Definition (VAR '.:IE)


Total net farm proprietors income in county i,
for years 1974-77 (YY).


Assessed just value of land classified as
agriculture in county i, for years 1974-77
(JUSTVAL).

Assessed agricultural value of land classified
as agriculture in county i, for years 1974-77
(AGRIVAL).

Total taxable value of real, personal and rail-
road property with use value assessment in county
i, for years 1974-77 (TAXBASA).

County tax revenue derived from property taxes
in county i, for years 1974-77 (COTAXRE).


Number of farms in county i (NF).



Average size of farm in acres, in county i (AF).


U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Regional Studies Division, BEA Farm Income
and Expenditures, April 1979, (unpublished data).

State of Florida, Department of Revenue, Florida Ad
Valorem Valuations and Tax Data, 1974-77.


Florida Ad Valorem Valuations
and Tax Data, 1974-77.


Florida Ad Volorem Valuations
and Tax Data, Table e, 1974-77.


State of Florida, Department of Banking and Finance
Local Government Finance Report, Fiscal year 1973-74
to 1976-77.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census,
1974 Census of Agriculture: Florida; County Data,
pp IV-1 to IV-396.

1974 Census of Agriculture:
Florida, County Data, pp IV-1 to IV-396.


Source




APPENDIX B. Definitions and Procedures


Variable Definition (VAR NAME)


Calculation


County millage rate differential due to reclassi-
fication of agricultural land according to use
value on county i, for years 1974-77 (DIFASMT).

Estimated total taxable value of real, personal,
and railroad property with just value assessment
in county i, for years 1974-77 (TAXBASJ),

CoMnty Millage rate under use value assessment in
county i, for years 1974-77 (AGRIMIL),

County millage rate under just value assessment
in county i,for years 1974-77 (JUSTMIL).

Total taxes paid by agriculture under just value
assessment in county i, for years 1974-77
(JUSTTAX),

Total taxes paid by agriculture under use value
assessment in county i, for years 1974-77
(FR ITANA).

Tax paid per acre in county i under use value
assessment, for years 1974-77 (ATPA).

Tax paid per acre in county i under just value
assessment, for years 1974-77 (JTPA).

Just value per acre for county i for years
1974-77 (JVPA).

Agricultural (use) value per acre in county i,
for years 1974-77 (AVPA).

Net income per farm in county i, for years
1974-77 (NIASF).


=(JUSTVAL AGRIVAL)



=(TAXBASA + DIFASMT)



=(COTAXRE TAXBASA)


=(COTAXRE TAXBASJ)


=(JUSTVAL x JUSTI.IL)



=(AGRIVAL x AGRIMIL)



=((FFHITAXA) (NFxAF))


=((JUSTTAX) ( r(NFxAF))


=(JUSTVAL NFxAF)


=(AGRIVAL Z NFxAF)


=(YY NF)


Calculation




APPENDIX B
page 2


Gross farm income under use value assessment in
county i, for years 1974-77 (YTCA).

Gross farm income under just value assessment
in county i, for years 1974-77 (YTCJ).

Tax paid as a percent of gross farm income under
use value assessment in county i, for years
1974-77 (FYTCA).

Tax paid as a percent of gross farm income under
just value assessment in county i, for years
1974-77 (FYTCJ).


=(YY + FRMTAXA)


=(YY + JUSTTAX)


=(FRMTAXA YTCA)



=(JUSTTAX YTCJ)




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs