Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont ordered a halt to new farm land valuations on Monday, citing an “unforeseen lack of data” that had undermined the state’s effort to update property assessments. The decision came after weeks of intense pressure from farmers who warned that the reassessments would sharply increase taxes and potentially force families to sell their land.
The state will maintain property tax valuations last set in 2020 while a working group of farmers, municipal leaders, and officials studies how to improve the assessment process. The halt averts what could have been significant financial strain for Connecticut’s agricultural community.
The controversy centered on Connecticut’s Public Act 490, a decades-old state law designed to preserve farmland by taxing property based on agricultural use rather than fair market value. State officials attempted to update the recommended land values for the first time since 2020 to reflect current market conditions, but the effort collapsed when a University of Connecticut survey failed to gather adequate data from farmers.
The Flawed Survey and Its Consequences
Connecticut’s attempt to update farm property tax assessments for the first time in six years collided with the economic reality facing the state’s agricultural sector. The state Office of Policy and Management partnered with the University of Connecticut to survey farmers about rental and lease rates, planning to revise recommended land values under Connecticut’s Public Act 490—a law dating to the 1980s designed to preserve farmland by taxing it based on agricultural use rather than development-market value.
The survey, conducted last year, was plagued from the start. The university’s researchers mailed more than 1,000 postcards with a QR code directing farmers to an online survey; 42 people responded. Email campaigns and direct outreach through municipal assessors yielded better results, but researchers ultimately received data from only about 145 rental or lease agreements. Connecticut has an estimated 5,000 farms.
When the revised assessments were released in October, some farmers were astonished. The taxable value of Tillable A farmland—the most productive agricultural land—jumped from $1,880 to $3,250 per acre, a 72 percent increase. In some areas, values were even higher.
Kim Grijalva, who operates a 100-acre cattle farm in North Stonington, saw the value of her pastures quadruple. But she was most alarmed by the treatment of rocky outcroppings and creek beds on her property: land that had been valued at $40 per acre suddenly carried a $970 per acre assessment.
“We would quit cattle ranching, it would make no financial sense,” Grijalva said about the potential tax implications.
Mounting Pressure Builds
The coming assessments sparked widespread concern throughout Connecticut’s agricultural community. An online petition opposing the new valuations gathered more than 20,000 signatures. Farmers approached state officials with their concerns. Farm organizations raised alarms. The deadline for municipal assessors to finalize property tax lists was Jan. 31.
In early January, the state announced a series of revisions intended to ease some of the most dramatic price spikes, but the changes did not satisfy the farming community. On Monday, Gov. Lamont ordered all new farm land assessments halted indefinitely.
“Family farms are vital to Connecticut’s economy and are an essential part of our heritage,” Lamont said in a statement. “Preserving these lands is about more than economics, it’s about sustaining a way of life that defines Connecticut, and we look forward to continuing our partnership with the farming community to keep Connecticut agriculture strong.”
The governor cited an “unforeseen lack of data” as the reason for rescinding the proposed new assessments.
Farmer Skepticism and Calls for Reform
On Tuesday, Senate Republicans hosted a forum in Hartford’s Legislative Office Building where dozens of farmers voiced their concerns. Paul Larson, president of the Connecticut Farm Bureau, offered a measured endorsement of Lamont’s decision.
“That is a huge step forward, and it takes a lot of the anxiety out of the room, I’m sure, for the short term,” Larson said. But he stressed the reprieve was temporary. “That’s just it. It’s for the short term.”
Grijalva and others said the assessment process had damaged the credibility of the Department of Agriculture. “Farms should not have to hire a lobbying agency like the Farm Bureau to protect them from the agency created to support them,” she said.
Agriculture Commissioner Bryan Hurlburt, who did not attend Tuesday’s forum, later acknowledged shortcomings in the university’s survey methodology despite what he described as additional outreach efforts by his agency.
“I think the reality is that we were listening and we heard, and we took the only corrective action that we could,” Hurlburt said, referring to the decision to rescind the assessments.
Lamont’s office said Tuesday that the governor remains supportive of Hurlburt.
A Two-Year Path Forward
Lamont convened a working group of farmers, municipal leaders, assessors, and state officials to study how Connecticut should update its farm-assessment methodology in the future. The group is expected to take up to two years to develop recommendations.
Larson said the state needs to find better ways to reach farmers and gather data about the agricultural rental market. “Can we actually rely on the old system of farmers actually having the time to sit down and fill out a fairly extensive survey? Probably not,” he said.
Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding praised the governor’s decision, calling it the result of farmer pressure. “I think the governor realized that in an election year, that he couldn’t have that,” he said, referring to the tax impact on agriculture.
Harding suggested that any future process should rely more heavily on input from working farmers themselves. “I think if we listened to (farmers) more we would have a good result for everybody, a fair result for everybody and, frankly, a quicker result,” he said.