Login
Skip to content

Changes to Current Use law debated by legislators

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 1118.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_field::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_field.inc on line 1148.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 165.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 165.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_sort::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_sort.inc on line 165.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 599.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 599.
  • strict warning: Non-static method views_many_to_one_helper::option_definition() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_many_to_one.inc on line 25.
  • strict warning: Non-static method views_many_to_one_helper::option_definition() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_many_to_one.inc on line 25.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_query::options_submit() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_query.inc on line 181.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_row::options_validate() should be compatible with views_plugin::options_validate(&$form, &$form_state) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_row.inc on line 136.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 1118.
  • strict warning: Declaration of image_attach_views_handler_field_attached_images::pre_render() should be compatible with views_handler_field::pre_render($values) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/image/contrib/image_attach/image_attach_views_handler_field_attached_images.inc on line 112.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_area::query() should be compatible with views_handler::query($group_by = false) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_area.inc on line 81.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_area_text::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_area_text.inc on line 121.
  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 1118.
  • strict warning: Non-static method views_many_to_one_helper::option_definition() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_many_to_one.inc on line 25.
  • strict warning: Non-static method views_many_to_one_helper::option_definition() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_many_to_one.inc on line 25.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_plugin_style_default::options() should be compatible with views_object::options() in /home/addison/public_html/sites/all/modules/views/plugins/views_plugin_style_default.inc on line 24.

Posted on February 3, 2014 |
By Hillary Niles of VTDigger.org



MONTPELIER — The Vermont House and Senate agriculture committees are gearing up for a showdown over changes to the state’s flagship land conservation program.

A special study committee chaired by Sen. Bobby Starr, D-Essex/Orleans, struck all the language from a bill that passed the House in 2013. The Senate version — still a rough draft — was discussed at the Statehouse on Tuesday evening at the fifth and final in a series of public hearings.

The Senate version tweaks some of the House provisions, leaves others behind and introduces new mechanisms for managing the nearly 2.37 million acres enrolled in Current Use at a cost of about $57 million in 2013.

Chief among the changes are a proposed cap on tax benefits that landowners could claim for keeping their land as working farms and forests.

Under Current Use, forestry or agriculture land is taxed less because it is valued for its current “use” rather than its current fair market value.

In tax year 2014, to begin April 1, forest land will be valued between $89 and $118 per acre — down a dollar from up to $119 in 2013. Agricultural land will be valued at $279 per acre, up $14 from the current year.

Some say the program is being manipulated by landowners to receive temporary tax breaks. Others fear that making it harder — or more expensive — to pull land out of the program would unfairly penalize land-rich, cash-poor families who deserve the right to sell their property at will.

The Senate study committee’s proposal to cap benefits stops short of suggesting what their upper limit should be.

Currently, the state simply waives the difference between taxes on a property’s fair market value (FMV) and use value appraisal (UVA).

But the senators on the study committee are suggesting the state should only waive the difference to a certain point. The landowners would then owe whatever taxes — if any — the state doesn’t waive.

Sen. Richard Westman, R-Lamoille, said in an interview Wednesday that the cap is an effort to discourage a pattern of subdivision that ends up costing the state more for the same amount of enrolled land.

But the proposal was met with skepticism Tuesday night, with several witnesses fearing the cap would inadvertently encourage development.

“In towns with high property values, this would increase the pressure to develop,” said Put Blodgett, a woodsman long active with the Vermont Natural Resources Council, the New England Forestry Foundation and the Vermont Woodlands Association, among other groups.

The Senate committee also proposed more oversight of the agricultural aspect of Current Use. Currently, landowners only need to submit management plans for forest land.

Many witnesses also were intrigued by the committee’s proposal to establish a “floating” two-acre exemption from enrollment. That provision would let landowners reserve two acres of a parcel for future development without facing a penalty. The two acres would be appraised at fair market value.

Editor's note: This story was provided by VTDigger.org.

Addy Indy News Digest

The latest in Addison County news, every Monday and Thursday.

Connect with us

Comments