Agriculture property... St.Joe?

Was their property classified as agriculture even AFTER they developed it?
If so, I smell a rat!

I can understand undeveloped timber land being classified that way, but a homesite that they're "place-making" not so much!

The property was always classified as agriculture, but they never had to file any thing different when they started developing it. It was a one time only filing for land to be classified that way. But I just heard that they (anyone with AG land) will now have to refile something before March08 or lose that status.

I know how to fix the Florida budget - take out all the $^%#*@ St. Joe loopholes and make them pay their share! :angry:

EXACTLY! they have made $$ hand over fist for the last 5-6 years and not had to pay squat in taxes on it, but now that they are going to have to pay up they are dumping all the land that WERE planning on developing and getting rid of any that might have to be reclassified.

I know how to fix the Florida budget - take out all the $^%#*@ St. Joe loopholes and make them pay their share! :angry:

I'm curious where the loop hole is? If the land has nothing but trees growing on it waiting to be cut down for paper production isn't hat Agricultural? I agree though that once you cut down said trees, pave a road, and put up the ugliest street lights known to man the status should change.

Thats how it SHOULD be. But there was never any law/ rule saying that you ever had to refile and change it.So they have been devolping/selling it for years and only had to pay the 2% that it was appraised at as AG land.

There isn't a law saying you have to change the land's classification when you develop it?

Seriously, that isn't part of the platting, selling, or approval process?

Not for the seller. When it is sold the NEW owner gets stuck with the taxes on the reclassified lots.
I bet Owls Head is getting away with the same thing.

Can you show us some examples from the property appraiser's database? When I look at the unsold lots that JOE still owns in Watercolor (last phase), they are being taxed the same as those that were sold.

Can you show us some examples from the property appraiser's database? When I look at the unsold lots that JOE still owns in Watercolor (last phase), they are being taxed the same as those that were sold.

I remember Windswept Estates lots being taxed at the agricultural rate after the initial lots were sold, but I think the zoning changed when the Development began. The actual assessments are based on the values on Jan 1.

Who knows? JOE may go back into the timber business. Most of their land is undeveloped and still planted with pine trees, making it agricultural. The land which is currently being developed shouldn't be zoned as agricultural, but again, that isn't the case for most of their property.

Can you show us some examples from the property appraiser's database?

I dont really know that much about it other than the fact that all of their property was initially AG and that while they were starting to develop and sell around here they still held an AG status. So I am sure that they never got around to changing it if it meant they were going to have to pay more and there was no law forcing them to. It just seems kinda timely that right before the new law requiring them to submit new paperwork goes into effect that start "restructuring" and selling off about 100k acres.
I would also like to know about their status in other areas of FL where they are developing "timberland".

I'm confused...

Are you saying that all St. Joe land should be taxed just because the long term vision is to develop most of it? If you go by that theory then when someone buys an undeveloped lot shouldn't they be taxed on the potential home they might/eventually build on it?

As I understand it, in order to develop a piece of Agriculturally zoned property, the owner must first apply for a zoning change. Once the zoning change is approved, it is up to the Property Appraiser's office to properly assess the taxes.

As I understand it, in order to develop a piece of Agriculturally zoned property, the owner must first apply for a zoning change. Once the zoning change is approved, it is up to the Property Appraiser's office to properly assess the taxes.

Okay, so then the taxes wouldn't really go up (substantially) since we are generally talking about roads and utilities possibly a club house?

I would hope there would be quite a tax/assessment jump between undeveloped agricultural land and a lot w/ streets and utilities they are listing for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I would hope there would be quite a tax/assessment jump between undeveloped agricultural land and a lot w/ streets and utilities they are listing for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is the way I understand it:You have agricultural land, lets say 40 acres in freeport, the land has just been developed and the land use has changed. The property was appraised prior to the development so it was appraised based on undeveloped agricultural land. Does the 10 year rule still apply until the land is re-appraised by the county? If so then until something sells wouldn't the county have to continue to base taxes on the appraisal on file so to speak?

From the news report regarding this issue, it seems that only Bay County is requiring the Ag forms to be completed.

From the news report regarding this issue, it seems that only Bay County is requiring the Ag forms to be completed.

Maybe they are getting a head start on all that property near the new airport that has no doubt been AG and they know it will soon be developed.

I would think it has more to do with their empending financial crisis.

hello

Can you show us some examples from the property appraiser's database? When I look at the unsold lots that JOE still owns in Watercolor (last phase), they are being taxed the same as those that were sold.

This parcel is owned by St Joe...North Lake Powell area...not ag but way undervalued...391 acres has a huge amount of waterfront assessed at 2 mil...

25-3S-18-16000-001-0000

Another piece owned by other than St Joe...paid $850,000 put house on property and still assessed for a little over $200,000...waterfront...

25-3S-18-16040-00A-0210

Seems that St Joe is not the only ones getting breaks...

This parcel is owned by St Joe...North Lake Powell area...not ag but way undervalued...391 acres has a huge amount of waterfront assessed at 2 mil...

25-3S-18-16000-001-0000

Another piece owned by other than St Joe...paid $850,000 put house on property and still assessed for a little over $200,000...waterfront...

25-3S-18-16040-00A-0210

Seems that St Joe is not the only ones getting breaks...

If you really want to bang your head on a wall, look up the value and rate for Capt. Andersons vs. Boatyard. Seems kinda fishy especially since the undervalued property is partially owned by a state rep. :scratch: