Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Value Appraisal Posting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Forestry officials warn posting and use‑value changes could complicate program administration
Summary
Witnesses from Forests, Parks and Recreation told the committee that proposals to change use‑value rates or tie use‑value to posting could create administrative burdens and unintended consequences for working forest management.
BURLINGTON — Keith Thompson, forestlands program manager with Vermont Forests, Parks and Recreation, and Commissioner Danielle Fitzko told the Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry Committee that proposals to reduce use‑value appraisal rates or to condition rates on public access (posting) would be administratively complex and could undermine working-lands goals.
Thompson said a substantial change to the use‑value rate would be one of the most significant program shifts in decades and warned it could reduce the program’s affordability for landowners. “To create a very significant change for the program … in terms of reducing the use value appraisal, the use value rate that landowners are receiving,” Thompson said, “I think there are some problems with that. I also think it could create a real administrative challenge.”
On proposals to tie appraisal rates or program benefits to whether land is posted for public access, Thompson and Fitzko expressed concern that enforcing a posting requirement would create new enforcement and customer‑service burdens for the agency and towns. Thompson noted that landowners post land for many reasons — safety, past experience, or to manage hunting pressure — and that adding posting criteria to program eligibility could require staff to adjudicate sign disputes and respond to complaints.
Commissioner Danielle Fitzko said the program’s scale and conservation role merit caution before changing fundamental terms. “We know it's working, but we all need to be thinking about the future and there's always improvements to be made,” she said, urging the committee to consider differences between agricultural and forested working lands when drafting changes.
Committee members did not adopt any amendments during the session. Agencies recommended further analysis of specific drafting options before making statutory changes.
The committee recessed for a break and asked staff to return with more detailed scenario analyses and drafting language.
