开云体育

A legislative effort to reform the state鈥檚 premier land conservation program has again fallen by the wayside.

Supporters of changes to the Current Use tax program say abuses of the system have fueled perception problems that threaten to undermine public support. But while most people have begun to acknowledge the existence of a problem, lawmakers can鈥檛 seem to agree on a fix.

Woodstock Rep. Allison Clarkson has dedicated a good deal of her last three terms in office to the Current Use issue. And she says that鈥檚 for good reason.

鈥淭his program 鈥� supports an over $4 billion economic engine, which is all the things that come out of our working lands,鈥� Clarkson says.

The program allows owners to pay taxes based on how the land is used 鈥� such as farming or forestry 鈥� instead of its maximum fair market value. Owners whose land is enrolled in Current Use temporarily forfeit development rights in exchange for drastically reduced tax bills. And proponents say it鈥檚 prevented the state鈥檚 rural character from being overrun by commercial development.

But the program now costs the state nearly $60 million annually, mostly in the form of lost tax revenues.

Clarkson says abuses of the system are rare. But she and others say they鈥檙e tarnishing Current Use鈥檚 public image. And she and others say that could make the program an increasing attractive target for cuts.

鈥淪o one of the most important things we needed to do was restore integrity to Current Use鈥� and restore the public鈥檚 confidence in this program, which we鈥檙e all helping finance,鈥� Clarkson says.

For the third time in five years, the Vermont House this year passed legislation that would ramp up penalties for removing land from the program. The bill is designed to thwart the developers who game the system by enrolling in Current Use land that they have no intention of conserving. In some instances, developers can save more on their tax bills than they鈥檇 pay in withdrawal penalties by parking their land in Current Use for as little as 220 days.

But while prospects for a deal with the Senate seemed bright as recently as a few weeks ago, division within the Senate has now cratered any hope of a compromise.

鈥淭he real frustration is we haven鈥檛 seen any action now for the fifth year to come to a resolution about how to keep this program growing and stabilize it, and also deal with some of the perceptions that there are ways to abuse the program,鈥� says Jamey Fidel, with the Vermont Natural Resources Council.

The issue of penalties is a sensitive one. Essex-Orleans Sen. Bobby Starr says he refuses to sign on to any reform that might create hardship for cash-poor landowners who need to withdraw land from Current Use so they can sell it and pay bills.

鈥淎nd as people get older and they鈥檝e been in for a long period of time, I don鈥檛 feel if they get to the point where they need to sell off a few acres to survive on, that they should be forced to pay a real high penalty,鈥� Starr says.

Starr was amenable to heightened penalties on landowners who withdraw land shortly after its enrolled. But when his Senate colleagues sought higher penalties for all withdrawals, no matter the term of enrollment, Starr demurred, and hopes for  deal were dashed.

Clarkson says a heavier hand from the Shumlin administration is one way to finally break the legislative gridlock. If nothing gets done soon, Clarkson says she fears Current Use will fall victim to the budget hatchet the next time the state鈥檚 finances decline. Fidel says lawmakers might also resort to caps on the program 鈥� as the Senate proposes earlier this year 鈥� something he says could prevent the conservation of important lands in the future.

鈥淣o one wants to touch it because it鈥檚, as we have seen, politically charged 鈥� doesn鈥檛 mean we shouldn鈥檛 try,鈥� Clarkson says.

Commissioner of Forest, Parks and Recreation Michael Snyder says it鈥檚 unlikely the administration will adopt a more hands-on role in the legislative process, anytime soon, at least when it comes to the land-use withdrawal penalty.

Snyder says it鈥檚 true that there鈥檚 a perception problem, and that the state might be well served to tweak Current Use regulations to address it. But he says that Vermont needs to be careful not to do any harm, something residents鈥� voiced concern about in series of public hearings last year.

鈥淭his is a massively important program, and though it may have some blemishes here and there, don鈥檛 mess it up too much,鈥� Snyder says. 鈥淲e heard that from a lot of people, and we take that seriously.鈥�

Snyder this session did manage to get two smaller revisions to the program, which will give his department greater flexibility when it comes to easing sanctions on owners of forestlands who fail to meet management-plan renewal deadlines, and allowing more ecologically significant lands into Current Use.