[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6311644,"mediaKeyId","2394964-0946469345c2713c92a6a1ff9ec0b2c7","parentId",2394964,"title","Tax department outlines problems and options for Vermont ’current use’ land‑use change tax; committee weighs affordable‑housing and farm transition fixes","audioSeconds",3103,"startMs",2007000,"endMs",5110000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2394964-0946469345c2713c92a6a1ff9ec0b2c7&start=2007&end=5110","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2394964-0946469345c2713c92a6a1ff9ec0b2c7/thumbnail_2007000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6311644/Vermont/Tax-department-outlines-problems-and-options-for-Vermont-current-use-landuse-change-tax-committee-weighs-affordablehousing-and-farm-transition-fixes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6311644-bb869f3bbe0bdc32f6847514dd821d7e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135457&Signature=bLphRmzV24AIcueqxNStJ2HqPNnHDJe1lvIkeKQ-wbof1t5ip5zX02c0MzQuXu8XuUyT5l94~o3Ef86AvOJ2QzAenC0L3Ik9lYWqBl6z4sggv6Dk8hJj1z176EXf4pqJ8jYbwadc9e050HK~uOTTAbylWLBrU1MzhZ3IjsvZ0WgJ7pHuCyWsBw0bVY1TVU2uysFlHwy-xN3uDsxKqcbsjBRbeANnbKWsBgxAaRznKpJCN-ZG55BLRWGi3lDS~uMp5p5R08epQzqups72aM9s8245yGLuvpejbOYlIjIkrx9YB3tIlcO5quVFFf0dHdxdj6Xz6gfz2O5BWmmDQTj1Ww__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","VT House Comm. on Agriculture, Food Res., Forestry","date","2025-02-25T00:00:00Z","article","The Department of Taxes told the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry that Vermont’s current method for valuing and taxing a withdrawal of part of an enrolled “current use” parcel produces unpredictable penalties, long delays and inconsistent outcomes — and that the committee has several legislative options to consider.

Jill Remick, director of the Property Evaluation Division at the Department of Taxes, described the land use change tax as currently calculated when a portion of an enrolled parcel is removed and said the existing approach can produce ‘‘effective tax rates’’ that vary wildly across parcels and municipalities. “The land use change tax is 10% of that value,” Remick said, describing the current statutory penalty and the complex valuation process that follows a withdrawal.

Why it matters: the land use change tax affects landowners, buyers and municipalities. Committee members repeatedly framed the issue as relevant to affordable and workforce housing, intra‑family farm transfers and municipal planning. Lawmakers and staff discussed proposals that would change the way the penalty is calculated, create an exemption or abatement for affordable housing built on withdrawn parcels, and alter eligibility rules for small farms.

Remick summarized several practical problems. When a portion of an enrolled parcel is withdrawn, state law requires the assessor (or lister) to value the removed portion “as if it’s a standalone parcel.” That requirement frequently lengthens the process because assessors have days or weeks to return valuations, valuations can be appealed, and the department may need additional time to calculate a final figure for closing or sale. Remick said the sequence often produces a multi‑step process that “creates pretty significant delay” for sales or development.

Remick and committee members discussed the following options and bill provisions:
- Replace or supplement the current proration/standalone valuation with a predictable formula (examples discussed included a flat fee, a flat fee plus percentage, or a clear calculator available on the department’s website).
- Allow the land use change tax to be calculated at withdrawal but abated if a qualifying affordable‑housing project is completed on the withdrawn land (the committee discussed H.1134’s proposal to exempt certain withdrawals for affordable housing and the practical question of how to verify compliance).
- Reduce the statutory percentage (H.273 proposes lowering the penalty from 10% to 6%).
- Change income eligibility thresholds for small‑parcel agricultural enrollment (H.273 proposes lowering the farmer income test from 50% of gross income to 25% for parcels under 25 acres) and expand eligibility to include equine operations.

Remick emphasized administrative constraints and compliance questions: how would the department confirm that an affordable‑housing project built after withdrawal actually met the statutory definition; could the department hold the tax “pending” and abate after verification; and how to handle the frequent scenario where a withdrawal occurs during a real‑estate transaction and the new buyer inherits the unpaid tax (Remick described that as a “hot potato”).

Committee members raised equity and policy tradeoffs. Representative Nelson and others urged solutions to make modest housing development near town centers less costly for owners withdrawing small front‑lot parcels. Representative Bracken asked whether a flat fee plus a percentage might yield fairer and more predictable outcomes for small withdrawals. Several members also noted the special administrative considerations for farm family transfers and for farm employee housing (farm employee housing becomes eligible for farm‑building treatment only after 12 months of use, which can require an initial withdrawal and later re‑enrollment).

Fiscal context: Remick provided historical estimates and program context. The department cited a historical study indicating that adding equine farms to the program would not be a large fiscal shock (a 2013 estimate indexed for inflation put the possible general fund impact in the low millions). Remick also said the program’s current statutory treatment has an education fund impact (the department cited roughly $55 million) and a municipal “hold harmless” / general fund impact (roughly $19 million) in present‑day terms.

Remick recommended additional witnesses for the committee: staff from the Agency of Natural Resources/Forest Parks and Recreation, the Vermont Center for Geographic Information (VCGI), and housing agencies. VCGI staff had already produced a map showing the radius and downtown‑adjacency effects of H.1134’s proposed affordable‑housing carve‑out, committee members said.

Ending: The committee asked the department to return with further modeling and to invite FPR and housing officials for follow‑up testimony. Members said they wanted more data and cost modeling before choosing among proposed solutions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Agriculture – 2025-02-25 – 1:05PM","oneSentenceSummary","The Department of Taxes told the House Agriculture Committee that Vermont’s current use land‑use change tax produces unpredictable penalties and delays when landowners withdraw a portion of an enrolled parcel, and presented options that include a flat fee, an affordable‑housing abatement, or reducing the statutory rate.","taxTitle","Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",36721,"location","Vermont","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6311647,"Vermont committee hears bill to reclassify fertilizer-adjacent products as “beneficial substances” and change labeling rules",1788,21000,1809000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2394964-0946469345c2713c92a6a1ff9ec0b2c7&start=21&end=1809","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2394964-0946469345c2713c92a6a1ff9ec0b2c7/thumbnail_21000.jpg","/articles/6311647/Vermont/Vermont-committee-hears-bill-to-reclassify-fertilizer-adjacent-products-as-beneficial-substances-and-change-labeling-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6311647-33998516180106fa9ef0bbb7f4781e97/orig.mp4?Expires=1771135457&Signature=JZHaHKjiAAjuKpfableweoqR8Esy9Iiy4WMbyJMn1NKTCfv6v6fDKKOa4Xj5Amswo8n-Wh4AfyKOHgrmdJ2-N0K8AH-w3nifvjteYKgQXOoJvSUZXzzmG9GhVYCXX2QNrsqOAj8F94OGUqGN1eDtJfBinfTqYBD~2fOjpO2VAPIKdUPKTR2jOgexK0pNWa~BNqqm1Xm8MnO1e4QsDoKm69l4kMdk7YJHFlWa5qy3~WJno1Q0LeA6kr7StWaX4OzqMB0wlkvj1Cr4f1gO0SktlfTnsR2kdkGmp0LhTPh7D6IxbeJ9ny34PC8aGQhXHpj~rTFqMFfUtebOrYk83Ga~mA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A draft bill to add a new category called “beneficial substances” to Vermont’s fertilizer laws and to change labeling rules for non‑fertilizer agricultural products drew detailed questions from the House Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency, & Forestry. Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets staff said the change is intended to harmonize state rules with a national model and to give the state clearer authority to register and police newer products on the market.

The bill would replace the separate designations now used in statute — “plant amendment,” “soil amendment” and “plant biostimulant” — with the single term “beneficial substances,” adopt the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials’ (AAFCO) definition of plant biostimulant, and change label requirements by replacing a guaranteed analysis with a statement of composition and directions for use. The draft also would require an expiration date on products that include live microorganisms.

Why it matters: agricultural products marketed as biostimulants, inoculants or soil amendments have proliferated in recent years. Committee members were told uniform terminology and labeling would make it easier for state regulators to review and compare products, help prevent misleading claims, and allow Vermont to act when products are adulterated or misbranded.

Stephanie Smith, an administrator with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, told the committee the registration program is “a consumer protection program” and that the proposed changes follow an AAFCO model so companies would not need separate labels for different states. Smith said the state will continue to register products and will “use its discretion and continue to register products until everybody in all industry moves forward to get into this new way of labeling things.”

Steve Dwinel, who introduced the agency’s presenters, described the proposal as “essentially just an extension” of the existing fertilizer statute to cover products that do not contain standard fertilizer nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) but are marketed to improve plant performance or soil health.

At least two committee members voiced reservations about the new terminology. Representative Bussin said the label “beneficial substances seems very generic and very affirmative,” and worried that industry representatives who help write definitions would have an incentive to present products as beneficial even where environmental harm could result. Bussin asked: “What if they’re really causing pollution to rivers when they get put in certain farmlands… and then they’re like, ‘Oh, but it’s a beneficial substance’?”

Agency staff replied the draft requires a statement of composition on the label (for example, naming calcium, boron, microorganisms) and that microorganisms are regulated at the federal level for importation. Smith said the statute allows the agency to require efficacy data for ingredients not already defined in AAFCO publications, and to take enforcement action if a product is adulterated or makes false or misleading claims. “We still retain the ability to take action against any product that’s adulterated or misbranded or makes… false, misleading claims,” a presenter said.

Committee members also heard that California and Minnesota have already adopted similar terminology and labeling changes, and that the fertilizer industry and states are working through AAFCO to develop methodologies for efficacy testing. Witnesses noted the Fertilizer Institute has a voluntary certification for some biostimulants but that a single, uniform certifying body for all products does not yet exist.

Questions from the committee covered specific product types and uses (for example, inoculants applied to seeds and materials intended to improve nutrient uptake or drought tolerance), enforcement authority, and whether the label change would reduce transparency for consumers. The agency said labels will still carry composition information and directions for use; the draft removes the old “guaranteed analysis” label heading in favor of a uniform “statement of composition” format.

Next steps: committee members asked the agency to return for more detailed review and markup. Committee staff said they will bring Michael Grady back to carry the bill through a technical review and possible amendment session.

Ending: The presenters left the committee to give members time to review the draft; a follow-up session was scheduled for additional markup with the bill sponsor and agency staff.

","A draft bill would replace separate statutory categories for plant amendments, soil amendments and plant biostimulants with a single category called “beneficial substances,” change labeling requirements and adopt a national definition of biostimulant, Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets staff told the House Agriculture Committee.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Tax department outlines problems and options for Vermont ’current use’ land‑use change tax; committee weighs affordable‑housing and farm transition fixes

Vermont committee hears bill to reclassify fertilizer-adjacent products as “beneficial substances” and change labeling rules