HB 2871-S.E - DIGEST

(DIGEST AS ENACTED)

     Revises RCW 84.34.020 to delete from the definition of farm and agricultural land any parcel of land designated as agricultural land under RCW 36.70A.170 or any parcel of land not within an urban growth area zoned as agricultural land under a comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW.

     Revises RCW 84.34.065 to delete the provision that, in valuing any tract or parcel of real property designated and zoned under a comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW as agricultural, forest, or open space land, the appraisal shall not be based on similar sales of parcels that have been converted to nonagricultural, nonforest, or nonopen space uses within five years after the sale.

     Revises RCW 84.40.030 to delete the provision that, in valuing any tract or parcel of real property designated and zoned under a comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW as agricultural, forest, or open space land, the appraisal shall not be based on similar sales of parcels that have been converted to nonagricultural, nonforest, or nonopen space uses within five years after the sale.

VETO MESSAGE ON HB 2871-S

                   April 3, 1998

To the Honorable Speaker and Members,

  The House of Representatives of the State of Washington

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     I am returning herewith, without my approval as to sections 1 through 6 and 10 through 13, Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 2871 entitled:

"AN ACT Relating to current use valuation;"

     Sections 1 through 6 and 10 through 13 of Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 2871 would create a new current use property tax valuation program for "agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance."  County assessors would automatically classify or reclassify land meeting the requirements of the bill.  Removing land from this classification would trigger a penalty equal to seven years of back-taxes, reduced by one year for every year the land remains in the classification.

     I believe that the program would set a bad precedent by allowing certain property owners to avoid paying several years of taxes, and pay no back-taxes if the land is later developed for non-agricultural purposes.  The vetoed sections of this bill could also make planning under the Growth Management Act more contentious.

     For these reasons, I have vetoed sections 1 through 6 and 10 through 13 of Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 2871.

     With the exception of sections 1 through 6 and 10 through 13, Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 2871 is approved.

                   Respectfully submitted,

                   Gary Locke

                   Governor