Agency of Agriculture warns current-use changes could accelerate loss of prime farmland

For the record, Ryan Patch with the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets told a House committee on Oct. 12 that proposed changes to the state's current-use program warrant careful consideration because they could encourage conversion of productive soils to housing.

Patch, the agency's Agriculture Climate and Land Use Policy Manager, said the bills under discussion ' H-134, H-273 and H-291 ' would change who qualifies for use-value appraisal or make it easier to take land out of current use near state-designated growth centers. "Current use value appraisal is one of those golden goose programs," Patch said, adding the program helps keep agricultural land economically viable by reducing property taxes on land that is worked.

The agency offered technical context and flagged trade-offs. Patch said GIS analysis shows about 30,000 acres of undeveloped land with prime or statewide-rated soils inside state-designated boundaries, and that roughly 10,000 of those acres are in active agricultural use based on land-cover overlays. "We found that there are about 10,000 acres of mapped agricultural lands that are within the boundaries of those state-designated growth centers," he said.

Patch told lawmakers that concentrating new housing in existing downtowns and growth centers was a policy goal of Act 250 and related programs. He said those designated centers already include some open, buildable prime soils and noted the state must weigh whether to encourage development on those soils or to prioritize keeping them in agricultural production.

Representative Nelson, who identified himself as a dairy farmer in Derby, said dairy accounts for a multibillion-dollar portion of Vermont's economy: "dairy alone is over $4,000,000,000 to Vermont's economy," he said, and urged the committee to avoid policies that harm farm viability. Other members discussed possible refinements: H-134, as described during the hearing, would increase opportunities for residential development within a three-mile radius of state-designated growth centers and provide relief from land-use change tax requirements in some cases; H-273 would alter how part-time or beginning farmers qualify under current-use rules (for example, changing the 51% income threshold); and H-291 would address land-sharing and recognition of landowners who keep property open for recreation.

Lawmakers pressed for more data. Patch said he did not have a complete inventory of non-enrolled buildable acres statewide and recommended further analysis: "To make informed policy decisions, you need a really good understanding of what's there," he said. He cited existing figures: about 9% of Vermont's land base is in active agricultural production by the Ag Census, and roughly 22% of the state has soils rated prime or statewide for agriculture.

Committee members described practical cases that motivated the bills, including older farm owners subdividing parcels to help younger farmers or families wanting to build modest housing on long-held properties. Patch and legislators discussed how the land-use change tax and Act 250 mitigation requirements interact with those scenarios; Patch said prime soils converted for development may trigger mitigation, and noted that some Act 250-tier changes under recent law could alter which conversions require mitigation.

No formal votes or directives came out of the session. Agency staff said more granular, program-specific data (for example, tax-department records on farm income or exact acreage enrolled in Current Use) would be needed to estimate fiscal impacts and eligibility changes.

The committee indicated interest in additional technical information before advancing statutory changes: mapping that overlays current-use enrollment, prime soils and state-designated growth centers, and tax-department or Agency of Agriculture analyses of how many landowners would newly qualify under different thresholds.

Patch closed by urging caution: while the agricultural sector needs supports to remain viable, abrupt changes to the current-use rules could produce unforeseen funding or land-loss consequences.