Ohio House and Senate differ on CAUV property tax relief

Responding to concerns about potential increases in Ohio property taxes, the Senate passed House Bill 187 (HB 187) this week to provide some relief from property tax hikes.  That relief, however, affects only the Ohio homestead exemption.  The Senate removed provisions the House had passed in HB 187 offering relief on other property taxes, including Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) taxes.  The House and Senate differences mean the CAUV adjustments originally in HB 187 are currently at a standstill.

House Bill 187.  The House passed its version of HB 187 in October.  The House version included provisions that would temporarily adjust CAUV calculations until 2026.  When updating the CAUV value, a county auditor would be required to use an average of the CAUV formula value for the current year along with CAUV values that would have been assigned in each of the preceding two years, since the last update.  This three year averaging would lower the expected increase in the new CAUV value.  But the Senate drafted and passed a substitute of HB 187, and the substitute bill does not contain the CAUV language. The House and Senate must now confer on its differing versions of HB 187 to work out the differences.

Senate Bill 153.  The Senate isn’t completely ignoring the CAUV adjustments—they exist in another bill.  Senate Bill 153 (SB 153), introduced in the Senate back in September, contains the same CAUV language as HB 187.  The Senate Ways and Means Committee held four hearings on SB 153 in September and October.  But the committee has not taken any action on the bill since the last hearing on October 11.

What’s next for CAUV relief?  There are two avenues to enacting the CAUV three year averaging provisions that could bring some relief from CAUV increases.  First is for the Senate to reinsert the provisions in HB 187.  The second is for the Senate to pass SB 153 and send it over to the House for consideration.  From our view, it’s difficult to gauge if the House and Senate are on the same page for completing either route.

Follow HB 187on the legislature’s website at https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/135/hb187 and track SB 153 at https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/135/sb153.

Ohio contemplating temporary CAUV changes

Written by Jeffrey K. Lewis, Attorney and Program Coordinator, OSU Extension Income Tax Schools

Two separate, but very similar, pieces of legislation are working their way through the Ohio Legislature and could end up affecting your farmland’s current agricultural use value (“CAUV”). House Bill 187 (“HB 187”) and Senate Bill 153 (“SB 153”) both seek to adjust how property values are assessed in Ohio and some of those proposed changes specifically affect CAUV. 

Both proposed bills aim to make temporary adjustments to CAUV for farmland. These changes will impact farmland that undergo reappraisal or triennial updates in 2023, 2024, or 2025. The adjustment does not alter the CAUV formula itself but rather calculates a farm’s CAUV at its next reappraisal or update as the average between the CAUV for that year and the CAUV it would have if it were in a county that had reappraisals or updates in the two previous years.

The Ohio Legislature has provided the following example: “[C]onsider a farm located in a county that undergoes a reappraisal in 2023. If the formula were applied for that year, the farm’s CAUV would be $200 per acre. However, if the farm had been reappraised in 2022, its value would have been $190 per acre, and if it had been reappraised in 2021, its value would have been $180 per acre. Under the bill, the farm’s reappraisal value will be $190 per acre (the average of $180, $190, and $200).” 

Again, these proposals for CAUV adjustments are only temporary, and the current valuation rules will be reinstated starting in 2026. For example, if the farm mentioned above undergoes a triennial update in 2026, its value will be determined without averaging, following the currently existing rules. Furthermore, if the 2023 CAUV tables, which prescribe the per-acre value of each soil type, have already been published before the proposed legislation takes effect, the Ohio Department of Taxation must update these tables within 15 days after the bill becomes effective to reflect the changes introduced by the Legislature.

As of the morning of October 5, 2023, HB 187 has gone through committee and is ready to be voted on by the House. The Ohio Senate had its third hearing on SB 153 on October 3, 2023, but has yet to report the bill to the floor for a vote. Some County Auditors have come out in “indirect opposition” to both bills, arguing that the proposed legislation would create a logistical nightmare for tax billing purposes. Lastly, there are some differences between the two pieces of legislation – unrelated to CAUV – that would have to be worked out between the House and Senate before we have a final bill that could take effect. We will continue to monitor the situation and keep you up to date on any changes. 

What’s happening for ag at the Ohio Statehouse?

Despite the arrival of summer and continuing disagreements over the state budget, Ohio legislators have been working on several pieces of legislation relevant to Ohio agriculture.  All of the proposals remain in committee but may see further action after the budget bill process ends. Here’s a summary of the ag related proposals currently under consideration at the Statehouse.

Senate Bill 111 – Urban Agriculture

Senator Paula Hicks-Hudson (D-Toledo) targets barriers for farmers in urban settings in SB 111, which has had three hearings before the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. OSU Extension, the Ohio Municipal League, and several farmers have testified in support of the  proposal, which contains three components:

• Establishes an Urban Farmer Youth Initiative Pilot Program to provide youth between the ages of six and eighteen living in urban areas with programming and support for farming and agriculture.  The bill would appropriate $250,000 over 2024 and 2025 for the pilot, to be administered by OSU Extension and Central State Extension.
• Exempts temporary greenhouses, such as hoop houses, from the Ohio Building Code, consistent with Ohio law’s treatment of other agricultural buildings and structures. 
• Codifies the Department of Taxation’s current treatment of separate smaller parcels of agricultural land under the same farming operation, which allows the acreages to be combined to meet the 10 acre eligibility requirement for Current Agricultural Use Valuation.

House Bill 64 – Eminent Domain

A proposal to make Ohio’s eminent domain laws more favorable to landowners remains on hold in the House Civil Justice Committee.  HB 64 is receiving more opposition than support, with dozens of parties testifying against it in its fourth hearing on May 23.  Read more about the proposal in our previous blog post.

House Bill 162 – Agriculture Appreciation Act

Rep. Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland) and Rep. Darrell Kick (R-Loudonville) introduced HB 162 on May 1 and it received quick and unanimous approval from the House Agriculture Committee on May 16.  The bill has not yet been introduced in the Senate.  The proposal would make several designations under Ohio law already recognized by federal law:

• March 21 as “Agriculture Day.”
• October 12 as “Farmer’s Day.”
• The week beginning on the Saturday before the last Saturday of February as “FFA Week.”
• The week ending with the second Saturday of March as “4-H Week.”

House Bill 166 – Temporary Agricultural Workers

A bill addressing municipal income taxes for H2-A agricultural workers has met opposition in the House Ways and Means Committee.  HB 166, sponsored by Rep. Dick Stein (R-Norwalk) would subject foreign agricultural workers’ income to municipal income taxes.  The current municipal tax base in Ohio is based on federal tax laws that exclude foreign agricultural worker pay from Social Security and Medicare taxes since the workers cannot use those programs, and HB 166 would remove that exclusion and add H2-A income to the municipal tax base.  The bill would also require employers to withhold the taxes for the municipality of the workers’ residences.  While municipal interests support the bill, Ohio Farm Bureau and agricultural interests testified against it in its third hearing on June 13.  Opponents argue that H2-A workers are not residents because they are “temporary,” that the proposal would have many potential adverse effects on how Ohio handles the H2-A program, and would hamper the ability of agricultural employers to use the H2-A program to hire employees.

House Bill 193 – Biosolid and biodigestion facilities  

Biosolid lagoons and biodigestion facilities would have new legal requirements and be subject to local regulation under a proposal sponsored by Rep. Kevin Miller (R-Newark) and Rep. Brian Lampton (R-Beavercreek).  HB 193 would grant county and township zoning authority over the lagoons and facilities, require a public meeting and county approval prior to seeking a facility permit from the Ohio EPA, require the Ohio EPA to develop rules requiring covers on new biosolid lagoons, and modify feedstock requirements for biodigestion facilities to qualify for Current Agricultural Use Valuation property tax assessment.  HB 193 had its first hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on June 13.

House Bill 197 – Community Solar Development   

A “community solar” proposal that did not make it through the last legislative session is back in a revised form.  HB 197 proposes to define and encourage the development of “community solar facilities,” smaller scale solar facilities that are directly connected to an electric distribution utility’s distribution system and that create electricity only for at least three “subscribers.”  The bill would establish incentives for placing such facilities on distressed sites and Appalachian region sites through a “Community Solar Pilot Program” and a “Solar Development Program.” Rep. James Hoops (R-Napoleon) and Sharon Ray (R-Wadsworth) introduced the bill on June 6, and it received its first hearing before the House Public Utilities Committee on June 21. “The goal of this legislation is to create a small-scale solar program that seeks to be a part of the solution to Ohio’s energy generation and aging infrastructure need,” stated sponsor Hoops.

House Bill 212 – Foreign ownership of property

 Ohio joins a movement of states attempting to limit foreign ownership of property with the introduction of HB 212, the Ohio Property Protection Act.  Sponsored by Representatives Angela King (R-Celina) and Roy Klopfenstein (R-Haviland), the proposal would prohibit foreign adversaries and certain businesses from owning real property in Ohio. The bill was introduced in the House on June 13 and has not yet been referred to a committee for review.

The legal roundup: ag law questions from across Ohio

I recall sharing my concern with a professor when I was in law school:  how will I ever know all the answers to legal questions?  No worries, he said.  You can’t know the answer to every legal question, but you do need to know how to find the answers.  I think of that advice often as legal questions come across my desk.   

We’ve had a steady stream of them this summer, and the questions provide a snapshot of what’s going on around the state.  Here’s a sampling of questions we’ve received recently, complete with our answers—some we knew and some we had to find.

What do you know about the $500 million to be set aside at USDA for meat processors—who will administer it and what is the timeline?  USDA published a notice on July 16, 2021 titled “Investments and Opportunities for Meat and Poultry Processing Infrastructure” seeking input on how to allocate the funds.  The notice solicits comments on how to address challenges and increase competition in meat and poultry processing through the $500 million in infrastructure and other investments.  USDA is looking at current programs, combinations of programs, and potential programs that can leverage the funds to expand and diversify meat and poultry processing capacity and make the supply chain more resilient.  A review of the questions USDA raised in the notice gives a good indication of the types of programs we might see, and administration of the programs could be at both the federal and state levels.   The comments are due by August 30, 2021 and USDA will review them before moving forward.  It will be at least several months before decisions are made and the funds are available.

If I enroll my land in the Wetlands Reserve Program, does the land still qualify for Current Agricultural Use Valuation tax treatment?  Yes.  Ohio’s CAUV law allows eligible land to be assessed as agricultural land for property taxation under the CAUV formula.  Eligible land is “land devoted exclusively to agricultural use.”  The definition of that term is important, and the relevant section that places wetlands and other conservation practices within that definition is ORC 5713.30(A)(1(c), which states that “land devoted exclusively to agricultural use” include tracts, lots, or parcels of land with at least ten acres which “were devoted to and qualified for payments or other compensation under a land retirement or conservation program under an agreement with an agency of the federal government.”  According to court cases in Ohio, wetlands enrolled in federal conservation programs fit within this term and should qualify for CAUV treatment, even wetlands used as a mitigation bank.  An Ohio Attorney General opinion disagrees that a wetlands mitigation bank is a government conservation program, but that is an advisory rather than binding opinion.

Are there any special requirements for a cottage food producer for selling “gluten free” or “vegan” products?   Yes. You must ensure that you meet federal regulations to use “gluten free” terminology on your cottage food label.  There isn’t a label review and approval process for using the language, though, as it’s “self-policing.” You must be sure that your product does not include any gluten containing ingredients.  And because low levels of gluten could result from cross contact in your kitchen, your product must be below the tolerance level of 20 ppm of gluten.  There isn’t a testing requirement to prove that you’re under 20 ppm before you sell it, but if for some reason someone challenged your product or ODA randomly sampled it, it must meet the 20 ppm standard.  You can have your product lab tested if you want to have that assurance.  Otherwise, you should carefully manage your kitchen to reduce cross contamination.  The FDA provides the gluten free labeling rule on its website  and has a helpful FAQ page also.  FDA has said it will be updating the gluten free rule, but I haven’t seen anything new yet.

Vegan labeling is a lesser regulatory concern.  If you use that or related terms like “animal free” on your product, federal law requires that you be “truthful and not misleading” to the consumer.  There isn’t a federal or state definition of “vegan” to help with that determination, but the agencies explain the term basically as not containing any animal products.  Your ingredient list should confirm any vegan or animal free claims on the product.

Are there regulations pertaining to online sales of perennial plants?  Yes.  The seller will need to obtain a nursery license from the Ohio Department of Agriculture.  The type of license will depend on their type of sales.  A phytosanitary certificate might also be required by the importing states where their sales will take place; ODA also handles those certificates.  Additional, the seller will need to obtain a vendor’s license from the Department of Taxation to collect and submit sales tax on the plant sales.

Does a “Scenic River” designation by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources allow the agency to take my property that’s along the river?  No.  The language in the Scenic Rivers statute is misleading, as it states that “the area shall include lands adjacent to the watercourse in sufficient width to preserve, protect, and develop the natural character of the watercourse, but shall not include any lands more than one thousand feet from the normal waterlines of the watercourse unless an additional width is necessary to preserve water conservation, scenic, fish, wildlife, historic, or outdoor recreation values.”  Without reading the entire statute, it does sound as though ODNR is laying some type of claim up to 1,000 feet of the lands adjacent to the river.  However, further along in the statute is this language that prohibits the agency from having any authority over the private land:  “Declaration by the director that an area is a wild, scenic, or recreational river area does not authorize the director or any governmental agency or political subdivision to restrict the use of land by the owner thereof or any person acting under the landowner’s authority or to enter upon the land and does not expand or abridge the regulatory authority of any governmental agency or political subdivision over the area.”  Additionally, my further research indicates that ODNR has never used eminent domain to take private property along a scenic river, nor does it have funding allocated from the legislature to purchase scenic river lands.

Do I need a license to make and sell egg noodles from the farm?  Yes.  Egg noodles don’t fall under Ohio’s Cottage Food Law, which allows you to make and sell certain low-risk “cottage foods” with little regulation or licensing requirements.  Instead, producing egg noodles for sale from a home kitchen requires a home bakery registration.  You obtain the registration from the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety Division.  It requires that you submit a request for inspection form, pass an inspection of the home, and submit a $10 fee.  The inspection will confirm that walls, ceilings and floors are clean, easily cleanable and in good repair; the kitchen does not have carpeted floors; there are no pets or pests in the home; the kitchen, equipment and utensils are maintained in a sanitary condition; the kitchen has a mechanical refrigerator capable of maintaining 45 degrees and equipped with a thermometer; if the home has a private well, proof of a well test completed within the past year showing a negative test result for coliform bacteria; the food label meets labeling requirements.

Is raising and training dogs considered “animal husbandry” for purposes of d the agricultural exemption from township zoning authority?   Yes. The Ohio Supreme Court held in Harris v. Rootstown Twp. that “the raising and care of dogs constitutes animal husbandry and is included in the term “agriculture” within the meaning of R.C. 519.01.”  This means that the agricultural exemption in Ohio Revised Code 519.21 applies to raising and caring for dogs, and township zoning can’t prohibit the use of any lot over five acres for those purposes.  The township would have limited regulatory authority over dog raising on smaller lots in some situations, though.  There is often confusion among townships over how to classify dogs, and that may be because they differ from what we typically think of as “farm animals.”  But the Rootstown Twp. case, along with many other appellate level cases in Ohio, confirm that dogs are to be treated the same as “livestock” for purposes of the agricultural exemption from zoning.  

Can both landowners be assessed half the cost of removal of noxious weeds that are growing in a partition fence?  Maybe.  The Ohio line fence law does allow a township to step in and clear the fence row of noxious weeds, brush, briers and similar vegetation if a complaint is filed by one landowner against an adjacent landowner who refuses to clear the weeds.  The costs for doing so are assessed back on the refusing landowner whose fence row was cleared.  If the noxious weeds arise from both sides of the fence, are growing in the fence, and must be cleared from both sides of the fence, the township trustees would have the authority to assess the costs of removal back on both landowners. I’ve never heard of that happening, but it’s certainly one of those “be careful what you wish for” situations.

Ohio Supreme Court rejects challenge to CAUV table

We learn early in law school that it’s an uphill battle when challenging agency actions in court, as the law typically grants agencies discretion to apply expertise and professional judgment when making decisions.  A landowner in Clark County just learned this lesson.  The landowner appealed the Ohio tax commissioner’s adoption of the 2016 Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) table, but the Ohio Supreme Court found no showing of an abuse of discretion by the agency.

The case arose from the CAUV valuation update in 2016 of William Johnson’s land in Clark County.  In setting the CAUV values, the county auditor consulted the unit-value table adopted by the tax commissioner.  The unit-value table lists soil types and ratings of each soil type along with per-acre values for each soil type. The tax commissioner annually adopts the table using a potential-income approach, as required by Ohio law, which determines typical net income from agricultural products for each type of soil, assuming typical management, yields, and cropping and land use patterns.   A county auditor refers to the unit-value table when determining CAUV farmland values, applying the per-acre values from the table to the soil types on a parcel. 

Johnson claimed that his CAUV value was too high because the 2016 unit-value table adopted by the tax commissioner did not list separate values for drained and undrained soils on his land.  The table does list differing values for Adrian, Carlisle and Linwood soils—one value for drained soils and one value for undrained soils.  However, the table lists just one value for all Crosby, Kokomo, and Patton soil types, the soils contained on the Johnson’s parcel.  Johnson argued that the tax commissioner erred by adopting the unit-value table without establishing separate values for drained and undrained Crosby, Kokomo, and Patton soil types.

The Supreme Court explained that Johnson’s challenge required showing that the tax commissioner committed an “abuse of discretion” in adopting the unit-value table. Two important principles apply to the “abuse of discretion” standard, the first being that the court will not substitute its judgment for the agency’s judgment unless the agency acted with an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude.  The court also presumes that an agency’s decision is carried out in good faith and with sound judgment, unless there is proof to the contrary.

According to Johnson, the tax commissioner abused his discretion in several ways:  by departing from the USDA’s taxonomy of soils, excluding data for land lacking artificial drainage, and not listing all soils with drained and undrained variations.  The court found no abuse of discretion, however, and no evidence to support the Johnson’s claims.  The court pointed out that the commissioner, as required by law, consulted with the “agricultural advisory committee” in preparing the table and referred to both Ohio State University’s Bulletin 685 and updates to the USDA taxonomy for guidance on soil types.  Explaining that the CAUV potential-income approach required the commissioner to determine “typical” management practices, the court stated that the commissioner was justified in not establishing a separate value for the Johnson’s “atypical practice” of not installing artificial drainage for the specific soils on his property.  Considering investments required for artificial drainage for some soil types but not for others doesn’t prove an abuse of discretion, the court stated.

The court’s conclusion reiterates the lesson on the difficulty of challenging an agency decision:

“To repeat:  the differential treatment of soil types reflects the exercise of judgment by the commissioner, which we presume to be sound. . . The record does not disclose the rationale for every consideration underlying the unit-value table, but it was not the commissioner’s burden to demonstrate the reasonableness of the CAUV journal entry—it was Johnson’s burden to show an arbitrary or unconscionable attitude on the part of the commissioner.  He has not done so.”

Read the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. McClain here.

Ohio General Assembly agrees on water quality bill

Written by Jeffrey Lewis, Attorney and Research Specialist, OSU Agricultural & Resource Law Program

Ohio is thirsty for some quality H2O, but the legislature has recently struggled with how to get it.  After debating two separate water quality bills for over a year, the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate finally passed H.B. 7 in December.  The bi-partisan bill aims to improve water quality in Ohio’s lakes and rivers but doesn’t establish a permanent H2Ohio Trust Fund as the House had first proposed. 

Even so, H.B. 7 will help fund and implement Governor Mike DeWine’s H2Ohio program.  DeWine unveiled his water quality plan in 2019 to help reduce phosphorus runoff, prevent algal blooms, and prevent lead contamination in Ohio’s waterways. In July 2019, the Ohio General Assembly invested $172 million to fund the H2Ohio initiative.  H.B. 7 continues those efforts by creating a statewide Watershed Planning and Management Program and directing the Ohio Department of Agriculture to implement a pilot program to assist farmers and others in phosphorus reduction efforts.

Here’s a summary of the specifics included in H.B. 7, delivered to Governor DeWine on December 30 and awaiting his signature.

Watershed planning and management program

The new Watershed Planning and Management Program established by the bill aims to improve and protect Ohio’s lakes and rivers. The Director of Agriculture will be responsible for appointing watershed planning and management coordinators throughout the seven watershed districts in Ohio.  The coordinators will be responsible for identifying sources and areas of water with quality impairment, engaging in watershed planning, restoration, protection, and management activities, collaborating with other state agencies involved in water quality activities, and providing an annual report to the Director of Agriculture regarding their region’s watershed planning and management.

Certification program for farmers

H.B. 7 also establishes a certification program for farmers who use best practices to help minimize their impact on water quality.  H.B. 7 requires the Director of Agriculture to undertake all necessary actions to ensure that assistance and funding are provided to farmers who participate in the certification program.

Watershed pilot program to reduce phosphorus in Ohio’s water

H.B. 7 authorizes but does not require the Department of Agriculture, in conjunction with the Lake Erie Commission, the Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission, and the Ohio State University Extension, to establish a pilot program that assists farmers, agricultural retailers, and soil and water conservation districts in reducing phosphorous and dissolved reactive phosphorous in a watershed.  The program, if established, would be funded from the Ohio Department of Agriculture’s budget for water quality initiatives.  Funding must be used for purchases of equipment, soil testing, implementation of variable rate technology, tributary monitoring, drainage management strategies, and implementation of nutrient best management practices.

Public record exemption for voluntary Nutrient Management Plans

Currently, a person who owns or operates agricultural land may develop and implement a voluntary nutrient management plan. A voluntary nutrient management plan provides for the proper application of fertilizer. An individual that implements a proper voluntary nutrient management plan receives an affirmative defense in any civil lawsuit involving the application of the fertilizer. In addition to the affirmative defense offered by using a voluntary nutrient management plan, H.B. 7 specifies that the information, data, and associated records used in the development and execution of a voluntary nutrient management plan is not a public record and is not subject to Ohio’s laws governing public records.

Regional water and sewer districts expanded authority

In addition to political subdivisions, regional water and sewer districts will have the authority to make loans, grants, and enter into cooperative agreements with any person, which includes a natural person, a firm, a partnership, an association, or a corporation, for water resource projects.

Also, regional water and sewer districts will be able to expand to whom they can offer discounts to for water and sewer services. Currently, districts can only offer discounts to persons who are 65 or older and who are of low or moderate income or qualify for the homestead exemption. H.B. 7 allows those discounts to be offered to any person who is considered of low or moderate income or that qualifies for the homestead exemption.

CAUV eligibility of land used for biofuel production

Unrelated to water quality, H.B. 7 also modifies the requirements that land used in biofuel production must meet in order to be valued for property taxes at its current agricultural use value (CAUV). Currently, land used for biofuel production qualifies for the CAUV program if:

1. The production facility is located on, or on property adjoining, farmland under common ownership; and
2. at least 50% of the feedstock used in the production comes from land under common ownership or leasehold.

H.B. 7 makes three changes:

1. Instead of the 50% feedstock requirement, House Bill 7 requires that, of the feedstock used in biofuel production, at least 50% must be “agricultural feedstock” (manure or food waste) and at least 20% of the “agricultural feedstock” must come from land under common ownership or leasehold.
2. None of the feedstock used in biofuel production can include human waste.
3. The biofuel production facility may be part of, or adjacent to, farmland that is under common leasehold or common ownership.

To view the text of H.B. 7 and additional analysis on the bill, click here.

Ohio Legislation on the Move

Written by Ellen Essman

The year is still fairly new, and 2020 has brought with it some newly-introduced legislation in the Ohio General Assembly.  That being said, in 2020 the General Assembly also continues to consider legislation first introduced in 2019.  From tax exemptions to CAUV changes, to watershed programs and local referendums on wind turbines, here is some notable ag-related legislation making its way through the state house.

New legislation

• House Bill 400 “To authorize a nonrefundable income tax credit for the retail sale of high-ethanol blend motor fuel”

HB 400 was introduced after our last legislative update in November, so while it was first introduced in 2019, it still technically qualifies as “new” to us.  Since its introduction, the bill has been discussed in two hearings in the House Ways & Means Committee.  The bill would give owners and operators of gas stations a tax rebate of five cents per gallon for sales of ethanol.  To apply, the fuel would have to be between 15% and 85% ethanol (E15).  If passed, the tax credit would be available for four years.  The bill is meant to encourage gas station owners in Ohio to sell E15, which is much more readily available in other states.  The bill is available here.

• House Bill 485 “To remove a requirement that owners of farmland enrolled in the CAUV program must file a renewal application each year in order to remain in the program”

Introduced on January 29, 2020, HB 485 would make it easier for farmers to stay enrolled in the Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) program.  CAUV allows agricultural land to be taxed at a much lower rate than other types of land.  If HB 485 were to pass, instead of filling out and turning in a CAUV renewal application every year, owners of agricultural land would simply have to submit documentation on the annual gross income of the land to the county auditor each year. The CAUV bill can be found here.

Legislation from 2019 still being considered

• House Bill 24 “Revise Humane Society law”

In November, we reported that HB 24 passed the House unanimously and was subsequently referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources.  Since that time, the committee has held two hearings on the bill. The hearings included testimony from the bill’s House sponsors, who touted how the bill would improve humane societies’ public accountability. The bill would revise procedures for humane society operations, require humane society agents to successfully complete training in order to serve, and would establish procedures for seizing and impounding animals. It would also remove humane societies’ current jurisdiction over child abuse cases and make agents subject to bribery laws. Importantly, HB 24 would allow law enforcement officers to seize and impound any animal the officer has probable cause to believe is the subject of an animal cruelty offense.  Currently, the ability to seize and impound only applies to companion animals such as dogs and cats.  You can read HB 24 here.

• House Bill 109 “To authorize a property tax exemption for land used for commercial maple sap extraction”

HB 109 was first introduced in February of 2019, but has recently seen some action in the House Ways & Means Committee, where it was discussed in a hearing on January 28, 2020.  The bill would give owners of “maple forest land” a property tax exemption if they: (1) Drill an average of 30 taps during the tax year into at least 15 maple trees per acre; (2) use sap in commercially sold maple products; and (3) manage the land under a plan that complies with the standards of reasonable care in the protection and maintenance of forest land.  In addition, the land must be 10 contiguous acres. Maple forest land that does not meet that acreage threshold can still receive a tax exemption if the sap produces an average yearly gross income of $2,500 or more in the three preceding years, or if evidence shows that the gross income during the current tax year will be at least $2,500.  You can find the text of the proposed bill here.

• House Bill 160 “Revise alcoholic ice cream law”

Have you ever thought, “Gee, this ice cream is great, but what could make it even better?” Well this is the bill for you! At present, those wishing to sell ice cream containing alcohol in Ohio must obtain an A-5 liquor permit and can only sell the ice cream at the site of manufacture, and that site must be in an election precinct that allows for on- and off-premises consumption of alcohol.  This bill would allow the ice cream maker to sell to consumers for off-premises enjoyment and to retailers who are authorized to sell alcohol. HB 160 passed the House last year and is currently in Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee in the Senate.  Since our last legislative update, the committee has had three hearings on the bill. In the hearings, proponents testified in support of the bill, arguing that it would allow their businesses to grow and compete with out of state businesses. Senators asked questions about how the ice cream would be kept away from children, how the bill would help business, and about other states with similar laws. To read the bill, click here.

• Senate Bill 2 “Create watershed planning structure”

In 2019, SB 2 passed the Senate and moved on to the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee. If passed, this bill would do four main things. First, it would create the Statewide Watershed Planning and Management Program, which would be tasked with improving and protecting the watersheds in the state, and would be administered by the ODA director.  Under this program, the director of ODA would have to categorize watersheds in Ohio and appoint watershed planning and management coordinators in each watershed region.  The coordinators would work with soil and water conservation districts to identify water quality impairment, and to gather information on conservation practices.  Second, the bill states the General Assembly’s intent to work with agricultural, conservation, and environmental organizations and universities to create a certification program for farmers, where the farmers would use practices meant to minimize negative water quality impacts. Third, SB 2 charges ODA, with help from the Lake Erie Commission and the Ohio Soil and Water Conservation Commission, to start a watershed pilot program that would help farmers, agricultural retailers, and soil and water conservation districts in reducing phosphorus.  Finally, the bill would allow regional water and sewer districts to make loans and grants and to enter into cooperative agreements with any person or corporation, and would allow districts to offer discounted rentals or charges to people with low or moderate incomes, as well as to people who qualify for the homestead exemption.

Since SB 2 moved on to the lower chamber, the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee has held multiple hearings on the bill, and has consented to two amendments.  The first amendment would keep information about individual nutrient management plans out of the public record. Similarly, the second amendment would keep information about farmers’ agricultural operations and conservation practices out of the public record. The text of SB 2 is available here.

• Senate Bill 234 “Regards regulation of wind farms and wind turbine setbacks”

SB 234 was introduced on November 6, 2019.  Since that time, the bill was assigned to the Senate Energy & Public Utilities Committee, and three hearings have been held. The bill would give voters in the unincorporated areas of townships the power to have a referendum vote on certificates or amendments to economically significant and large wind farms issued by the Ohio Power and Siting Board. The voters could approve or reject the certificate for a new wind farm or an amendment to an existing certificate by majority vote.  The bill would also change how minimum setback distances for wind farms might be measured.  The committee hearings have included testimony from numerous proponents of the bill. SB 234 is available here.  A companion bill was also introduced in the House.  HB 401 can be found here.

Lawsuit alleging Ohio overcharged farmers for CAUV must be brought in Ohio Court of Claims

Last month a lawsuit about Ohio’s Current Agricultural Use Value (CAUV) calculation showed back up on our radar.  As we explain in another blog post, the state of Ohio uses CAUV to calculate how much tax owners of land devoted exclusively to an agricultural use must pay.  The plaintiffs sought reimbursements from the state by arguing that the state failed to properly calculate CAUV in accordance with Ohio law.  The case was dismissed by the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, and the 10th District Court of Appeals affirmed that decision as appropriate.  However, that does not necessarily spell the end for these plaintiffs.

What started the lawsuit: good times meant higher taxes

Many farmland owners likely remember what happened around the middle of this decade to property tax assessments under Ohio’s CAUV formula as it was calculated at that time.  In part because Ohio’s CAUV assessment formula takes agricultural commodity prices into account, a couple of strong years for crop prices contributed to a drastic and generally unanticipated increase in property tax bills for farmers across the state.  Those assessment increases led to a successful effort to change the CAUV formula so that drastic fluctuations would be less likely to occur moving forward.  However, some property owners wanted a reimbursement for previous assessments, not just a new formula.

What the plaintiffs wanted: equitable restitution

The case began on June 26, 2015, when three parties filed a complaint in a county court of common pleas against the state tax commissioner.  The three plaintiffs sought a class action certification to act on behalf of all owners of Ohio lands devoted to agricultural production.  The complaint alleged that the state of Ohio illegally collected more than a billion dollars of property taxes from those owners.  Therefore, the landowners first sought repayment under the legal doctrine of unjust enrichment.

Over the next few months, the plaintiffs amended their complaint twice.  The first amended complaint added a claim for repayment under the doctrine of equitable restitution.  It also added more named plaintiffs, added then-Governor Kasich as a defendant, and asked for compensatory damages.  The second amended complaint removed the Governor and tax commissioner as defendants, added the state of Ohio as a defendant, and removed all claims except for equitable restitution and a declaratory judgment.  Lots of adjustments, but what is equitable restitution?

Equitable restitution is a type of recovery under the law that says one party has improperly benefitted at the expense of another, and therefore should return the benefit to its rightful owner.  Here, the plaintiffs argued that allegedly illegal CAUV collections meant that the state of Ohio had improperly benefitted at the expense of owners of CAUV lands.  Therefore, the state of Ohio should have to return that benefit, which would mean a return of the property tax overpayments.

However, there are two types of restitution under the law: legal and equitable.  Legal restitution is available when a plaintiff cannot assert a right of possession to a particular property but is nonetheless able to shows grounds for compensation from the defendant.  When money is involved, the distinction is largely based upon whether money clearly identifiable as belonging to the plaintiff can be traced to particular funds in the defendant’s possession.  If the money can be traced to particular funds, then equitable restitution is more likely to apply.

For example, say that a plaintiff gave a defendant a five dollar bill, but something goes wrong and the plaintiff wants her money back.  The plaintiff may have an equitable remedy if she seeks the return of that specific five dollar bill.  However, she may only have a legal remedy if she simply wants five dollars back.  This distinction played an important role in the outcome of this case.

Why the case was dismissed: lack of jurisdiction

The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed because the common pleas court determined that it could not hear the case because of the nature of the remedy sought.  Instead, in ruling on the state’s motion to dismiss, the common pleas court decided, and the appellate court affirmed, that only the Ohio Court of Claims has jurisdiction for this type of case.

The Ohio Court of Claims is a special kind of state court that exists primarily to handle lawsuits against the state of Ohio.  Its existence stems from the idea in the U.S. Constitution’s Eleventh Amendment that states have immunity as sovereigns.  States may choose if and when to be sued; however, most have waived that immunity to some extent.  Ohio chose to partially waive its sovereign immunity in particular types of cases by allowing people to sue it in a special court instead of in a county court of common pleas.

When it created the Ohio Court of Claims, the Ohio General Assembly decided that people seeking relief at law must file their lawsuit with the Ohio Court of Claims, while those seeking equitable relief may file their lawsuit with a county court of common pleas.

Restitution happens to be a type of remedy that can be classified as either legal or equitable in nature.  The focus is not on what the parties call the restitution they seek, but what they actually want from it.  In this case, it was not enough that the plaintiffs called what they wanted “equitable restitution.”  The court only cared about what the plaintiffs actually sought.

In looking at the facts, the court determined that the plaintiffs sought the return of funds that could not be traceable into any state account, and therefore the remedy sought was legal in nature.  The court explained that Ohio’s property taxes are collected and held at the county level, and there was no evidence that the CAUV property tax collected by the counties ever made it to the state.  Absent this transfer, the specific tax dollars that the plaintiffs allege were wrongfully paid to the state were not traceable to any state accounts.  Without this traceable link, the plaintiffs could only seek a return of money in general, rather than the return of specific funds.  Because of this, only the Ohio Court of Claims could hear this case and award this remedy.

It was on the basis of this distinction that the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the case, and that the Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

What are the plaintiffs’ next steps: Ohio Court of Claims or the end?

The trial court dismissed the case “without prejudice,” meaning that the parties are not barred from filing the case again in a proper court.  This can be common when the case is dismissed on a procedural basis where there could be a claim with some merit that has neither been decided on the merits nor settled.  At this time, it does not appear that the plaintiffs have refiled the case in the Ohio Court of Claims, and we cannot predict whether or not they will do so.

The case is cited as Vance v. State, 2019-Ohio-1027 (10th Dist.), and the opinion is available on the Ohio Supreme Court’s website HERE.

What We’ve Been Up To: Examining the Different State Approaches to CAUV

When we are not on the road presenting, in the classroom teaching, or keeping up with the news for the blog, our team is busy working on large scale research projects for the Agricultural & Food Law Consortium.  One of our recent projects looked at how states assess farmland for property tax purposes, and we then created a compilation of every state’s laws on this topic.  Based upon the research, we found that property taxes are a fact of life for virtually all landowners in the United States, but that each state uses a “differential tax assessment” for agricultural lands.

What exactly is a differential tax assessment?  Many Ohio farmers know about and use Ohio’s special property tax assessment known as CAUV, which is short for Current Agricultural Use Valuation.  Instead of assessing property taxes on the basis of the market rate for developable land, CAUV uses a different formula that assesses the land on its value for agricultural production.  CAUV is a form of differential tax assessment.

While each state utilizes differential tax assessments for agricultural lands, they use different definitions of agriculture, different formulas, and different application processes.  Some areas of law utilize model acts that states may adopt in order to make it easier to do business across state lines.  Differential tax assessments of agricultural land do not have a model act, so each state’s language reflects the culture, norms, and conditions of the respective state at the time the state adopted or amended its differential tax assessment.

An example close to home illustrates what this means.  Under Ohio Revised Code § 5713.30(A), agricultural use means commercial animal or poultry husbandry, aquaculture, algaculture, apiculture, the commercial production of field crops, tobacco, fruits, vegetables, nursery stock, ornamental trees, and sod.  Commercial timber qualifies, but non-commercial timber only qualifies if it located on or next to land that otherwise would qualify for CAUV.  Exclusive use requires just that: the land is exclusively used for an activity listed as an agricultural use.  Lands of more than 10 acres that are exclusively devoted to agricultural uses qualify, but lands of less than 10 acres only qualify if the average yearly gross income exceeds $2,500 over the preceding three years.  That is an example of a definition of what qualifies as agriculture for the purposes of the differential tax assessment.

The differential tax assessment project compiled the approaches taken by all fifty states, and the compilations are available on the National Agricultural Law Center website HERE.  This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Landowner’s Evidence Not Determinative in CAUV Tax Appeal According to Ohio Supreme Court

Written by: Evin Bachelor, Law Fellow, Agricultural and Resource Law Program

A landowner may present evidence regarding the value and acreage of his or her land, but the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) is free to weigh that evidence as it wishes, according to the Ohio Supreme Court.  All seven justices agreed that the BTA in the case of Johnson v. Clark County Board of Revision acted with appropriate discretion, although two justices did not sign onto the reasoning as to why the BTA acted appropriately.  The case involved a property owner’s challenge of the Clark County Auditor’s determination of Current Agricultural Use Valuation (CAUV) for property tax purposes.

Continue reading for more information about what CAUV is, how CAUV determinations and tax assessments can be appealed, what happened in the Johnson v. Clark County Board of Revision case, and the main takeaways from the Supreme Court’s decision.

What is CAUV?

CAUV permits owners of land devoted exclusively to agricultural uses to request that the county auditor assess property for tax purposes based upon the value of the land’s current agricultural use, rather than its true market value.  Since its inception, CAUV has generally provided landowners with qualifying property a lower tax bill than they otherwise would have using market value.  Ohio most recently changed the formula for CAUV in 2017.  If CAUV land is converted to a use that no longer qualifies for CAUV treatment, the land is again assessed based upon its fair market value and the landowner must pay to the county the difference between the CAUV value and the fair market value for the prior three years.  To learn more about CAUV, visit the Ohio Department of Taxation’s CAUV webpage here.

How can a CAUV determination be appealed?

First, if a landowner believes that all or part of his or her parcel qualifies for CAUV, an application must be submitted to the county auditor where the land is located.  County auditors are the “chief assessing officers of their respective counties” and have the authority, within the guidelines of the state tax commissioner, to make the initial CAUV determination under Ohio Revised Code § 5715.01(B).  Landowners should contact their county auditors about filing instructions.

Second, the procedure to appeal whether land qualifies for CAUV is different than the procedure to appeal a tax valuation assessment.  If a landowner does not agree with their county auditor’s determination as to whether or not land qualifies for CAUV, they have thirty days to file an appeal with their county court of common pleas under Ohio Revised Code § 929.02(A)(2).  Decisions of courts of common pleas can be appealed to the state district court of appeals, and those decisions can be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

If a landowner does not agree with their county auditor’s valuation assessment, the landowner may file a complaint with their county Board of Revision.  The forms for these complaints are generally available at the county auditor’s office or website.  If a Board of Revision believes that the county auditor made an error in applying the CAUV statute and rules, the board has the authority to revise tax assessments.  If the landowner still does not agree with the Board of Revision’s decision, he or she may appeal to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals within thirty days of the Board of Revision’s decision under Ohio Revised Code § 5717.01.  More information is available on the BTA’s website here.  Alternatively, under Ohio Revised Code § 5717.05, the landowner may appeal the Board of Revision’s decision to the appropriate county court of common pleas.

Decisions of the BTA can be appealed to the respective state district court of appeals where the land in question is located, and those decisions can be appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.  However, there are certain cases in which landowners can appeal decisions of the BTA directly to the Ohio Supreme Court under Ohio Revised Code § 5717.04.  However, the types of appeals of a BTA decision eligible for direct appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court were reduced in September 2017 through House Bill 49.

What happened in Johnson v. Clark County Board of Revision?

Mr. Johnson challenged the Clark County Auditor’s 2013 tax assessment of his 154.61 acre farm.  Neither party disagreed that the land qualified for CAUV, but Mr. Johnson disagreed with how much the Clark County Auditor said the farm was worth under the CAUV formula.  For tax year 2013, the auditor assessed the property’s CAUV at $457,250.

Mr. Johnson appealed to the Clark County Board of Revision.  He testified, and also elicited testimony from an employee of the Clark County Soil and Water Conservation District and an employee of the Clark County Auditor’s office.  Further, Mr. Johnson presented photographs, official records from the tax commissioner and auditor, and a “self-prepared written statement purporting to convey [the SWCD employee’s] site-visit findings.”  The Board of Revision rejected Mr. Johnson’s claims.

Mr. Johnson then appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals.  Again, Mr. Johnson testified and produced a number of exhibits.  At this appeal, he elicited testimony from an employee of the Ohio Department of Taxation.  The BTA also rejected Mr. Johnson’s claims, finding that the Clark County Auditor had acted appropriately.  Mr. Johnson then filed an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court in 2016.  Mr. Johnson represented himself pro se, or without an attorney.

What are the main takeaways, and why did the landowner not succeed?

First, the Ohio Supreme Court explained that a landowner challenging a Board of Revision or Auditor’s tax assessment must convince the BTA that his or her valuation assessment is correct and the one they are challenging is incorrect.  This requirement to convince the Board of Tax Appeals is known as the burden of proof.  The burden of proof determines which party must play an active role in proving his or her argument, while the opposing side will only have to present proof to counter if the board finds that the first party has carried its burden.  Here, the court said that Mr. Johnson, as the landowner challenging the assessment, had the burden to convince the BTA.  The court disagreed with Mr. Johnson’s argument that the county should have to rebut his evidence and prove the value that it assessed.

Second, even though the BTA properly said that Mr. Johnson had the burden of proof, this does not mean that the BTA should have presumed the Board of Revision’s decision to have been correct.  Instead, the BTA must independently analyze the evidence presented to it, and not simply defer to and accept the Board of Revision’s decision.  Here, the Ohio Supreme Court found that the BTA did conduct an independent assessment in confirming the Board of Revision’s determination.

Third, while an owner may present evidence as to the value of his or her land, a BTA has discretion to determine how much weight to give to that evidence.  An owner’s opinion as to the value of his or her land is not determinative, but is merely a piece of evidence that the BTA may consider.

Fourth, instead of looking at the acreage, the focus of the assessment should be on boundaries and a property’s uses within those boundaries.  The Ohio Supreme Court explained the distinction between calculating acres and delineating boundaries by using dictionary definitions, and the distinction is essentially that a bounded area is fixed in space, while acreage alone describes an area without a specific line of demarcation.  To prove that a parcel or portion of a parcel qualify for CAUV treatment, the boundaries of the qualifying land must be determined.  Acres can only be determined after the boundaries are established.  Here, Mr. Johnson did not prove the boundaries of CAUV areas on his land to the BTA’s satisfaction, and the Ohio Supreme Court said that it was within the BTA’s discretion to reject Mr. Johnson’s evidence.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s full opinion, cited as 2018-Ohio-4390, is available here.  Additional facts about the case can be found within the court’s opinion.