Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Current Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Department of Taxes says S.79 study committee should get consultant funding; suggests broader review of current-use program
Summary
Jill Remnick, director of Property Valuation and Review at the Vermont Department of Taxes, testified that S.79 (establishing a recreation-trails compensation study committee) should include funding for outside expertise and that the state might benefit from a larger evaluation of the current-use program’s objectives and fiscal impacts.
Jill Remnick, director of Property Valuation and Review at the Vermont Department of Taxes, told the Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee on March 19 that the department is willing to serve on a recreation-trails compensation study committee proposed in S.79 but that the Legislature should include funding for professional support.
Remnick described the department’s responsibilities — administering the statewide education and property tax system, managing exemptions, and administering the current-use program — and cautioned that adding major research work to agency staff without consultant support can be difficult. She cited a recent example in which the department secured a $50,000 appropriation to hire a national contractor (the International Association of Assessing Officers, IAAO) to study reappraisal oversight; that project used about $45,000 and produced a nationwide comparison that helped inform Vermont’s move to a six-year reappraisal cycle.
Remnick said the current-use program covers roughly one-third of Vermont’s land area and is intended to tax enrolled lands at use value rather than fair-market value in exchange for continued working-agriculture, forestry and related land use. She suggested legislators might consider a broader appraisal of current use — including questions about whether current-use objectives are being met, distributional effects on property taxes, economic impacts, and possible eligibility changes — rather than a narrow study solely on recreation-trail compensation. Committee members noted the proposal could evolve and asked whether a focused study on trail compensation might instead examine liability and incentives for private landowners who allow public access.
Remnick agreed the department could participate in a committee and urged that any study budget include funds for outside professional support to ensure quality and timeliness.
Ending
Committee members thanked Remnick and noted they would continue to refine S.79’s scope; the department offered to remain engaged as the committee decides whether to fund a consultant or broaden the study.
