House Bill 6067 would amend Michigan’s General Property Tax Act to revise and clarify how assessors classify real and personal property for property tax purposes. The bill largely restates existing classification categories, but it makes several notable changes to the agricultural property definition. In particular, it would require contiguous vacant, wooded, or certain outbuilding parcels owned by the same taxpayer to be classified as agricultural real property when the primary parcel is agricultural, even when those parcels cross local tax collecting unit boundaries, so long as they are immediately adjacent and otherwise qualify under the bill’s rules.
The bill also expands and clarifies what counts as agricultural operations and agricultural outbuildings. It expressly protects agricultural classification when a property owner implements a wildlife risk mitigation action plan, and it creates a presumption that parcels used for direct marketing activities or on-site agritourism events are agricultural real property unless the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development proves otherwise. The bill defines direct marketing, agritourism, and related farm-support activities more broadly, including farm markets, U-pick operations, farm-to-table dining, seasonal festivals, weddings, and value-added processing such as cider pressing, winemaking, and on-farm food preparation.
In addition to the agricultural changes, the bill preserves the existing framework for classifying commercial, industrial, residential, developmental, timber-cutover, and personal property. It also keeps the current dispute and appeal process for classification challenges, including review by the March board of review, appeal to the State Tax Commission, and limited appeal rights for the Department of Treasury. The bill retains the requirement that certain property subject to payments in lieu of taxes be placed on a separate assessment roll, while still counting that roll for constitutional debt-limit calculations.
The overall impact would be on local assessors, county equalization departments, the State Tax Commission, the Department of Treasury, and especially farmers and property owners engaged in agritourism or direct farm marketing. By broadening agricultural classification rules, the bill could affect how some parcels are taxed and may reduce the risk that farm-adjacent or farm-support parcels are reclassified into higher-tax categories. It also provides more explicit statutory guidance for mixed-use farm operations and wildlife mitigation activities.
There is no recorded committee transcript or vote history in the provided material, so no formal legislative debate or roll-call sentiment is available. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at supporting agricultural land use and clarifying tax treatment for modern farm operations, with likely favorable reception from agricultural interests. Potential contention would most likely come from tax administrators or local governments concerned about broader agricultural classification, reduced tax base, or the presumption favoring agricultural status for direct marketing and agritourism parcels.
The bill would amend MCL 211.34c in the General Property Tax Act, primarily by refining property classification rules for agricultural real property and related farm-support uses. It would require certain contiguous parcels owned by the same taxpayer to be classified as agricultural when the main parcel is agricultural, expand definitions of agricultural operations and agricultural outbuildings, and create a presumption that parcels used for direct marketing or on-site agritourism are agricultural unless rebutted by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. It would also preserve existing classification, appeal, and assessment-roll provisions for other property types and for property subject to payments in lieu of taxes.
No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no documented public sentiment in the record supplied. From the bill language, the measure appears generally pro-agriculture and pro-farm-business, with an emphasis on protecting agricultural tax classification for modern farming, agritourism, and direct-to-consumer sales activities. The likely supportive sentiment would come from farmers and agricultural stakeholders, while tax officials and local governments could be more cautious because of possible classification and revenue effects.
The main points of contention are likely to involve the breadth of the agricultural classification and the presumption favoring farm status for parcels used in direct marketing or agritourism. Local assessors, tax administrators, and municipalities may be concerned that the bill could expand the number of parcels receiving agricultural treatment, potentially lowering taxable values or complicating classification decisions. Agricultural stakeholders would likely support the bill’s protections for contiguous parcels, wildlife mitigation plans, and value-added farm activities, while opponents may argue that some mixed-use or event-oriented parcels should not automatically receive agricultural classification.